An archetypal metaphor in political discourse

B. Hill remarks that Obama «is an expression of the fulfillment of the American dream». Hill argues that Obama’s election may be the climax of the Civil Rights Movement. By crossing the «color line» into the highest possible office, Obama himself is a symbol of the end of the historical arc that began when W.E.B. DuBois predicted, the problem of the twentieth century would undoubtedly be the problem of the color line and embodies all the racial strife and progress of the last century.

W hile Hill correctly argues that Obama brought new meaning to the American dream and that Obama holds a place within the manifestation of that meaning, Hill neglects to describe the characteristics of Obama’s interpretation of a rather broadly defined concept or discuss the rhetorical methods by which he defines this symbol. F or politicians like Obama, it is important to persuade audiences of a particular conclusion, especially in situations with many possible interpretations, such as the definition of the American dream.

I n «The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation,» scholar R. V atz theorizes that when representing a situation through any rhetorical medium, a rhetor can give special emphasis to certain components, while omitting others, and craft a manipulated vision of the subject known as the «rhetorical situation». He quotes Ch. P erelman, who says, «By the very fact of selecting certain elements and presenting them to the audience, their importance and pertinency to the discussion are implied. I

ndeed such a choice endows these elements with a presence". In any scenario, there are innumerable ways to describe or approach the objective reality, meaning «one never runs out of context». Rhetors have nearly limitless options of how to present a scenario, and may define the situation as whatever rhetorical situation best suits their goals. I n political rhetoric, it is common to see activists and politicians tactfully select to emphasize various components of the factual or conceptual space. T

hey focus the attentions of their audience on a particular set of factors related to the subject from an almost infinite collection of possibilities. This highlights one key conceptual region within an infinitely large space of options.

4.

2.2. Key archetypal metaphor in Obama’s rhetoric — American Dream

I n «A More Perfect Union» speech, Obama creates a number of rhetorical situations. H e reshapes the context in which R. W right’s inflammatory remarks were made and, more extensively, reshapes the larger situation of the American experience to define the American dream. T o do so, he draws upon his ethos (appeal based on character) as a mixed race American.

T his analysis provides both a practical understanding of Obama’s American dream symbol and a rhetorical understanding of the role that a particular technique, in this case ethos, can play in the construction of rhetorical situations by politicians. In «A More Perfect Union» Obama employs ethos so as to define two rhetorical situations, one that relates to Wright’s comments, and the other that shapes the vision of America into which his definition of the American dream fits.

T hrough the force of his personality, Obama quells the immediate political implications of the Wright controversy by defining a friendly rhetorical situation in which it occurs. O bama decries the «caricature» of Wright in the media based only on «the snippets of those sermons that [run] in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube» (speech «More Perfect Union»). In his defense, Obama shares with his audience a passage from «Dreams From My Father» describing his moving first experience in Wright’s church. U

sing this quote risked damaging his ethos by placing emphasis on a deeply personal link between the two. H owever, through the use of a rhetorical technique known as «recontextualization», Obama actually seeks to deconstruct and re-envision the Wright controversy by associating its events and actors with more positive elements. E stablishing this link places Wright in a positive contextual space surrounding Obama’s spiritual awakening and the formation of a major part of his ethos. H e explains Wright’s background, saying he «came of age in the late «50s and «60s, a time when segregation was still the law of the land», and that «for the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of [the Jim Crow] years» (speech «More Perfect Union»), assertions licensed by his ethos as Wright’s friend. Categorizing Wright into a generational group mitigates his responsibility for the comments by suggesting that they are merely part of a trend of generational reverse racism, a pattern of distrust or resentment for whites by blacks born in the Jim Crow era.

O bama also draws a parallel between Wright’s opinions and white racism, saying, «I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother… a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe» (speech «More Perfect Union»). He argues that, like Wright’s generation of blacks, working middle-class whites born around the same time as Wright are frustrated by the sacrifices forced by programs like Affirmative Action they have to make «because of an injustice that they never themselves committed» (speech «More Perfect Union»). In Obama’s rhetorical situation, racism is exclusively a generational characteristic, not a personal failure. T his excuses Obama’s relationship with the pastor by characterizing his views as relatively on par with those of others from similar backgrounds and limiting Wright’s personal responsibility for his comments. O

bama’s subsequent endeavor in this speech to apply the same treatment to the American dream is more complex. T he dream holds a unique place in the idea of American culture and life, serving as a uniting concept in the identity and outlook of the people of the nation. T he rhetorical situation of Obama’s version of the American dream is that of an America whose values are rooted in its Constitution, the primary function of which is to ensure an equal experience for all Americans, on top of an interpretation of American history that defines the dominant narrative as that of the pursuit of that equal experience, the movement for individual rights, a perspective that he develops through his ethos.

O bama signals that he intends to make his speech about more than race by beginning with a quote from the Constitution, «We the people, in order to form a more perfect union» (speech «More Perfect Union»). He later defines the document as «a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice,» and subsequent at tempts to better adhere to its principles as «[narrowing] the gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time» (speech «More Perfect Union»). He recontextualizes the Constitution, transforming it from a legal document to a «promise of ideals.» In this situation, the Constitution is a reference manual for the nation’s values. A ccording to Obama’s reading, «the document… was ultimately unfinished. I t was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery,» a stain that needed «successive generations who were willing to do their part» in order to improve a flawed «union that could and should be perfected over time» (speech «More Perfect Union»). Though the Constitution has twenty-seven amendments, Obama only refers to improvements with regards to civil rights. The most significant element of the Constitution is «equal citizenship under law» (speech «More Perfect Union»).

O bama frames the Constitution as a mandate for a society founded on equal rights, an assessment that, while not invalid, focuses on one aspect of the document to the exclusion of many others. T o explain this narrow focus, he says, «This belief comes… from my own story… I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas… I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners» (speech «More Perfect Union»). Here Obama draws on his ethos in order to present his perspective as uniquely derived from his background. H

e gently suggests to his audience that they could not relate to the experience that has brought him to this viewpoint. B ut he goes on to say, «your dreams don’t have to come at the expense of my dreams» (speech «More Perfect Union»). Obama paints a picture of the American Dream in which he is both the key manifestation of the nation’s promise and also one story among many. H is election, then, would mark the next step on the road to full equality — both because of its uniqueness and because of its representativeness. W

here as in Obama’s view America has endeavored to perfect the union in the past, «through protests and struggles, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience» (speech «More Perfect Union»), that progress has slowed. T oday, in his view, the country is unable to fix its issues of equality of experience due to «a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years» (speech «More Perfect Union»). To get out of this stalemate, Obama proposes that he serve as a stand-in for the nation’s progress. H is election would mark a giant step towards fulfilling that ideal of equality laid out in the Constitution. Indeed, Obama places the Constitution and U.S. history into a rhetorical situation in which his election would help the nation achieve its dream.

O bama’s American dream envisions a post-racial society that promotes economic justice for all individuals. T his dream emanates from his ethos and idealizes his own perspective and experience. I n the context of the Wright controversy, Obama argues that the way to move forward is to say «Not this time,» to a dialogue that «tackle[s] race only as spectacle» (speech «More Perfect Union»), and to open up to a dialogue that considers the perspectives of both races. S cholar Robert Terrill’s analysis of Obama’s speech cites his main success as crossing the racial divide and fully elucidating both perspectives on the issues, using what W.E.B. DuBois labeled «double consciousness», a skill he is granted by his biracial ethos.

T his suggests that Obama himself is the key to the future of the dream. F urther, he suggests that those who fought for the dream in the past, mostly civil rights crusaders, embodied the hope in the future inherent to the American dream, and that «one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this presidential campaign [was] to continue the long march of those who came before us» (speech «More Perfect Union»), showing that he presented himself as the logical next step in the trajectory of American history. I n Obama’s idealized America, notions of economic fairness for individuals trump corporate concerns.

H is conversation about moving forward includes a racial dialogue, but it also argues, «the lines in the emergency room are filled with [those] who do not have health care… the shuttered mills… the homes for sale…[and] that the corporation you work for will ship [your job] overseas for nothing more than a profit» (speech «More Perfect Union»). The casual inclusion of these politically oriented ideals stems from Obama’s rhetorical definition of a Constitution that serves to protect individual rights, at the expense of the insurance companies, banks, and companies that he vilifies. F urther associating himself with this dream, all of these suggestions were core components of his presidential platform. O bama’s American dream outlines a specific vision of the nation, of which Obama is himself an embodiment. O bama’s speech «A More Perfect Union» is a case study in the use of ethos to construct «rhetorical situations,» and it defines the American dream that rhetoricians attribute to his electoral success.

T hroughout his treatment of both Wright and the American dream, he employs the technique of recontextualization to change the implications of various concepts. T he political environment in which he gave his speech necessitated that he place Wright’s comments within a more favorable rhetorical situation than they had been presented in by the media, while the imperatives of his interpretation of the American dream as a post-racial society modeled after his own social outlook compelled him to recontextualize American history and the Constitution.

T he design of both these rhetorical situations was driven by the application of his ethos. This definition of the American dream places the presidency and outlook of Obama in a new light.

4.

2.3. Other archetypal metaphors in Obama’s rhetoric

In general there basic metaphorical data to be used in future were presented in Obama’s inaugural speech.

The metaphor «change is movement» can be found, for example, in the following examples:

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

In the first metaphorical expression the part which acts as source domain is the phrase «rising tides» and «still waters» whereas the target domain is the words «prosperity» and «peace». As it can be seen in the phrases «rising tides of prosperity» and «the still waters of peace», movement — either self-propelled or otherwise — can involve a change of location. In case it involves a change of location, it can be associated with the words like «forward», «backward», «upward», or «downward» meaning directions. So, «the rising tide of prosperity» can be reformulated as the state of prosperity has become more than before, while peace has not undergone change. Besides, the movements here can also be specified as «flow of natural force» («the rising tides») and «substance» («still waters»).

In the second metaphorical expression the part which acts as source domain is the phrase «We intend to move forward» and «programs will end» whereas the target domain is the ideas of US government plan to provide job for jobseekers and better social warranty.

In both metaphorical expressions Obama wants to tell the recipients that all presidents of America since George Washington until his period had taken the presidential oath and strived hard to develop America. All of their effort had the aim of raising economic development and prosperity. All of these can be achieved if there is a good political support from his people.

Metaphor «politics is fight/war» can be found quite broadly in general political communication and in Obama’s speeches as well, for example:

Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

I n this metaphorical expression the part which acts as source domain is the phrase «at war» and «against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred» whereas the target domain is «our nation». In this quotation we see the talk of a country’s political condition in terms of fight or war. I n the domain of fight or war one can be a winner or a loser. W

e see how a politician in political arena faces other politician as an opponent. H e attacks other politician’s position and he defends his own. P ossibly he will gain and possibly he will lose ground. H e plans and uses strategies. I

f he finds a position indefensible, he can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things a politician does in politics are partially structured by the concept of war.

Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument (attack, defense counter-attack) reflects this.

It can be clearly seen that in the «politics is fight/war» metaphor expressions from the vocabulary of war or fight, e.g., attack a position, indefensible, strategy, new line of attack, win, gain ground, etc., form a systematic way of talking about the battling aspects of the world of politics. The conceptual network of battle characterizes the concept of politics. Since metaphorical expressions in the language are tied to metaphorical concepts in a systematic way, we can use metaphorical linguistic expressions to study the nature of metaphorical concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of our activities.

Obama also uses quite frequently an archetypal metaphor «politics is a journey», for example:

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.

Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, which have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

In the first metaphorical expression the part which acts as source domain is the phrase «This is the journey we continue today» whereas the target domain is American Political life. By saying the sentence of «This is the journey we continue today» Obama gives an impression that the American people are the travelers having a journey to certain destination.

In the second metaphorical expression the part which acts as source domain is the phrase «Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted» whereas the target domain is also American political life.

I t can be seen from both quotation that the principle for understanding the domain of politics can be applied in terms of the domain of journeys. T he principle can be stated informally as a metaphorical scenario: The people involved in political life are travelers on a journey together, with their common life goals seen as destinations to be reached. P olitical relations are relations between them in their vehicle, and it allows them to pursue those common goals together.

T he relationship is seen as fulfilling its purpose as long as it allows them to make progress toward their common goals. T he journey is difficult, because there are impediments, and there are places (crossroads) where policies or political decisions have to be made. They will answer the questions about which direction to go in and whether to keep traveling together.

The metaphor involves understanding one domain of politics in terms of a very different domain of journey. Technically, the metaphor can be understood as a mapping (in the mathematical sense) from a source domain (in this case, journey) to a target domain (in this case, politics).

The archetypal metaphor of «more is up; less is down» is seldom express clearly. Usually it is derived from other metaphors, such as «change is movement» mentioned in the beginning of this chapter. Example:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered.

In this metaphorical expression the part which acts as source domain is the phrase «badly weakened», «have been lost», and «shuttered» whereas the target domain is «economy, homes, jobs, and business.». By saying the sentences of «Our economy is badly weakened, and homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered» Obama wants to indicate a physical basis of American current economic condition meaning the following: if there is a decrease in physical objects (like homes have been lost) there is a weakening of economic conditions in the country (jobs shed and businesses shuttered). It means the economic level goes down. But otherwise if there is an increase in the substance or physical object, the level goes up.

The elaboration of this metaphor brings us to the contemporary theoretical archetypal metaphor «more is up». This archetypal metaphor is grounded in common human experience: the more fluid one pours into a container the higher is the level of the fluid in the container. Same is about firm objects: the more you add, the higher is the pile.

These are thoroughly pervasive experiences; we experience them every day of our lives. They are structural experiences — a correspondence between the conceptual domain of quantity and the conceptual domain of verticality: «more» corresponds in such experiences to «up» and «less» corresponds to «down». These correspondences in real experience form the basis for the correspondence in the metaphorical cases, which go beyond the cases in real experience. For example, we say that «prices are rising» meaning they are becoming bigger (you need to add several more «money units» to put it physically). However here there is no correspondence in real experience between quantity and verticality.

Chapter 5. Prosodic characteristics of political speeches

5.

1. Prosodic characteristics of the speeches of Martin Luther King

I n traditional rhetoric, beginning with ancient authors and up to the modern concepts, metaphor is seen as a figure of speech that serves, among other rhetorical devices, the objectives of the impact on the recipient. O ut of the three categories of classical rhetoric — logos, ethos, and pathos — metaphor refers to the last, i.e. to pathos.

I t is the pathos which is «responsible» for the speech expression means to promote the implementation of the communicative intention of the speaker, which might be to convince the audience that he is right, to encourage it for some action or, conversely, to reject it. H owever, as the ancient rhetoricians understood, the paramount importance is given to the emotional and psychological impact. E motional and intense speech has greater impact than a speech, devoid of expressiveness. This fact is well known to politicians, so in their speeches, they are willing to use a variety of rhetorical devices including metaphor.

Having been originated in antiquity, in the heyday of oratory, rhetoric, however, has gradually lost its position in the XIX century and was reduced to a practical skill of judicial rhetoric. However, since the second half of the XX century we observe its revival in the form of so-called «neorhetoric» tending to the rehabilitation and development of ancient traditions, and, therefore, once again we see the updated role of metaphor as a means of emotional impact and conviction.

Inheriting an antique canon, and some well-developed parts of the theory, neoretoric takes over a lot of unsolved problems in classical rhetoric. Among them, first of all, is the issue of the content of the central concepts of rhetoric: argumentation, conviction and persuasion. Understanding how these concepts relate to each other, is further complicated by the changed conditions of speech communication. For neorhetoric emerging in the era of mass communication the study of the audience is more difficult than it was in the ancient world when the speaker spoke just to the crowd.

A variety of viewpoints on the subject entails an ambiguity in assessing the scope and substantive content of rhetoric, argumentation theory and the theory of persuasive communication. Researchers say: «…at present the theory of argumentation is devoid of a single paradigm, and is hardly being an observable field of different views on the subject of this theory, its main problems and prospects». The relationship between these theories is also seen differently by different authors.

The impact of the speech on the recipient was investigated in the framework of the speech activity theory by A. Leontiev. The basis of this theory is the idea of the lack of independence of the speech, its subordination to the objectives of the activity for which it is deployed. This is seen not only as a means of communication, but also as a means to control human activities — in the sense that it is the management of the interlocutor which is the ultimate goal of speech communication, with respect to which to send the message is only a means.

Speech exposure is defined as «the regulation of one person by another through the speech». However, it is necessary to differentiate between the speech impact in a broad and in a narrow sense. In a broad sense, the influence of speech is defined as any verbal communication, taken in the aspect of its focus, its target. In a narrow sense, the influence of speech is a verbal communication in media or in a campaign speech directly to the audience. That has been the subject of theoretical and experimental investigations of Russian linguists and psychologists, who based their investigations on the theory of speech activity by A. Leontiev.

Martin Luther King learned his speaking style in the churches of the Southern Baptist Bible belt of the Deep South. The speech «I have a dream» was made by King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, but it still brings up the emotions of those who listen to it, so poignant and fiery is it. This is a speech aimed at promoting the civil rights movement and calling for an end to racial discrimination. Its most telling lines come about 17 minutes into the speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a country where they are not judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

In themselves, the words are powerful enough, because King is advancing his message through a very personal experience involving his «four little children». Such imagery is guaranteed to move even the hardest of hearts.

Coupled with his tremendous use of timing, it really is a tour deforce. In those 39 words, Martin Luther King pauses for in excess of six full seconds. This is how he actually delivered the speech:

I have a dream [pause, four seconds] that my four little children [pause, two seconds] will one day live in a country where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

Towards the end of the paragraph, King employs three other oratorical techniques. From «…but by the content of their character» to the end of the paragraph he speeds up to stress the urgency of his demands. He also repeats his «I have a dream» motif for added emphasis. Finally, his voice gradually rises in volume and force throughout the speech, ending on a crescendo. There are very few pieces of oration to match such a powerful use of the pause.

5.

2. Prosodic characteristics of the speeches of Barack Obama

One of the main characteristics of Obama’s speaking features is his baritone voice, as was the case of Martin Luther King. A baritone voice is a natural asset for a leader, whether spiritual or political, for it is the voice associated with authority.

The cultural conceptions associated with the different types of voices unconsciously influence the listeners, either positively (for Obama) or negatively (for Clinton). It makes what is being said more powerful and puts Obama at an advantage against Hillary Clinton, who was often associated to a shrilling mother.

All those who have sought to analyze Obama’s speaking style agree on the strong religious and pastoral influence that actually defines and characterizes it. For Philip Collins, former speechwriter of Tony Blair, «His style of delivery is basically churchy, it’s religious: the way he slides down some words and hits others — the intonation, the emphasis, the pauses and the silences».

Obama can use the «black-cent» (meaning «black accent») to sound «black» when he wants. Analyzing Obama’s catchphrase «yes we can», American linguist John McWorther explains that it worked precisely because it was delivered with a «black-cent», which conveyed more warmth and made him sound more accessible. As regards the utterance of «yes we can», the «black-cent» is characterized by a shortening of «we» and the specific, musical black intonation: instead of falling, this doubly-assertive expression starts at a high level and ends high.

In this phrase pronounced by Obama the vowel of the auxiliary modal is lengthened. It bears contrastive emphasis because the verb is not mentioned and to stress the idea of capacity conveyed by «can». In fact, the verb was not mentioned before and therefore the elliptic sentence is open to interpretations.

McWorther states that Obama uses the black-cent to pronounce his catchphrase but it seems in fact that it depends on the utterances and in some cases, the intonation is closer to the standard pattern, especially for the first utterances when it is pronounced several times.

T he successive utterances are more and more patterned on the «black-cent» rendition. T his can demonstrate that, although some of the characteristics of the «black-cent» are present (higher pitch and higher intensity), it takes some time and possibly warming-up for Obama to adopt the expected intonation. I n addition, Obama sometimes pronounces the words as if they were disconnected, marking pauses after each one (which was often rendered in official transcripts by using full stops between the words) and stressing all them.

E xcept at the beginning of his enumerations, Obama’s rendition of the phrase is generally musical. A s Philip Collins pointed out, «He is close to singing, just as preaching is close to singing. A

ll writing is a rhythm of kinds and he brings it out, hits the tune. It’s about the tune, not the lyrics, with Obama".

N o wonder that American singer and musician Will.I.Am (from the «The Black Eyed Peas») decided to make a song to support Obama based on the «Yes We Can» catchphrase. T he cretic foot is here based on the strong form of the modal auxiliary «can». To arouse emotion, Obama also uses repetitions (anaphora in particular) to build up a crescendo. T here are usually at least three elements but sometimes more. S uch sections are sometimes found at the beginning of certain speeches as is the case with the «Iowa Caucus Night Speech» which is a Victory Speech.

T hey can also be found in the course of the speech to provide for a change of rhythm and have the audience interact and they can almost always be found toward the end of the speech with the final lyrical outburst. C ommenting on the exordium of the «Iowa Caucus Night Speech», body language specialist Patti Wood analyzed the magical power of Obama’s voice and tone: «He builds and builds and builds his voice up… he also has long, long pauses. T

hen he gives time for the audience to respond… It doesn’t really matter what he’s saying because his voice tells you what you should be feeling about what he’s saying. T he words are irrelevant. You might not even remember the word message after the speech, but you’ll remember the feeling".

Patti Wood insists on the use of pauses to let the audience respond and they therefore function as an invitation to interaction. Pauses often punctuate Obama’s sentences. This has stood out as a major characteristic feature of his spoken style, largely taken up by imitators.

I n that case, pauses perform a different function. T hey reflect the pastoral tone. I

f we take for comparison Lyndon B. J ohnson’s 1965 Inaugural Address, we’ll hear that his very frequent and fairly long pauses recall King’s delivery of «I Have A Dream». Obama’s pauses are never as long. A ccording to Pierre Léon, pauses can also be used to emphasize a word. They precede the important word and the pause is a sign sent by the speaker to the people he is addressing to pay attention to what is going to be said.

It is the case for example in Obama’s «Speech on Patriotism»:

I will never — question the patriotism of others in this campaign. (pause for applause) But I will not stand idly by when others question mine.

Or in the same speech:

I think it is fitting to reflect — on the meaning of patriotism, — theirs and ours.

In this second example, the two pauses have different functions. The first one is used to delay the moment for Obama to say what they should reflect upon. It lets people time to wonder what they should ponder about. As for the second pause, it seems to mark the end of the sentence, but Obama unexpectedly adds a precision.

The long pause in the first example to let people applause also functions that way. The paragraph seems to have reached its end, but Obama suddenly centers the argument back on him (the sentence starts and closes with 1st-personal pronouns).

Obama actually alters pace of delivery, rhythm and intonation according to what he is saying just as the preacher alters as he needs to adopt the appropriate tone and pace to tell a story, comment on the Scripture or appeal to his congregants" emotional reaction as the sermon ends. When he is not building up a crescendo, Obama often speaks with a regular rhythm. For Patti Wood, «[In Obama’s speeches] the cadence and the rhythm are hypnotic. He actually speaks on a beat. It’s a model of the Baptist preacher».

Obama adapts his tone to the section of the speech, using the most adequate preachers" oratorical tools.

Obama’s style combines the characteristic features of the black preacher’s speaking style. For Peter Prober, director of George Mason University’s forensics team, Obama’s shift from politician to preacher can be determined very precisely: «With Obama, there’s a shift in tone from being a politician in Iowa to a preacher in New Hampshire. He has a new religiosity in his tone when he talks about „three words that will ring“. He’s embracing the pulpit. He really does hearken back to Martin Luther King a lot».

Conclusion

The language of any nation is metaphorical probably from the very first moment of its existence. Some metaphors have appeared so long ago that today have become usual and hence not obvious to many speakers and recipients. However, even in case a recipient doesn’t spot a metaphor in the speech, it still does its work. And its main goal is to influence the recipient and make him feel, think and do what the speaker wants.

In this paper we investigated mostly the phenomena of archetypal metaphors which in public speeches.

The idea of a specific nature of archetypal metaphors has appeared relatively recently. M. Osborn was the first to formulate the theory which was later revised and extended.

In M. Osborn’s perception archetypal metaphor is the most «ancient» metaphor which is clear to absolute major audience. It is used much more frequently than nonarchetypal. And this is because it is clear to everyone. If a speaker would like to make his/her speech more figurative this is an archetypal metaphor which is used in most cases: it is clear to everyone, the speaker doesn’t have to make it up and he doesn’t have to fear that someone may not understand what he’s saying.

A very interesting feature of archetypal metaphors that proves their cognitive content and universal character is that these metaphors are the same at all times and in all cultures and depend little on the short-term conditions of their actualization. So, this is a «foreigner-friendly» rhetoric device. Even if the recipient is not good in the language of the speech or even is the interpretation is not accurate, these metaphors can be easily understood.

Archetypal metaphors are grounded in prominent features of human experience, which means that they are based on the very common routine which is known to everyone. This, by the way, also implies that the archetypal metaphors use only those concepts that are fairly clear to anyone: life, journey, war, politics, family etc.

Archetypal metaphors always relate to basic human needs. The never dwell upon something which is not universal. So, this is a common experience and the common interest at the same time.

Due to its versatility archetypal metaphors have an impact on the greater part of the audience. Because of this universal character an archetypal metaphor may be the only thing from the speech which will be surely understood by every recipient.

In any society, archetypal metaphors are often found in the most important parts of the most important political references, which grants the attention of the recipients to the archetypal metaphors.

We have analyzed the use of archetypal metaphors in the speeches of Martin Luther King and Barack Obama. We have identified almost all the archetypal metaphors suggested by M. Osborn. But concluding the paper we would like to elaborate more on the links between the archetypal metaphors in Martin Luther King and Barack Obama discourses.

Martin Luther King was probably the first to bring a new archetypal metaphor of «dream» (and later «an American dream») to American public and political discourse. In his speech «I have a dream» besides the common archetypal metaphors of «politics is war» etc. there is a metaphor of a «dream» as a forecasted future for which everyone shall struggle. He also speak in this connection about his children who are here technically connected with the dream. So, the actual metaphor here is «my children will live in my dream». Thus, this metaphor of dream is closely connected with the archetypal metaphor of family.

The same two metaphors (naturally, besides others) become the center of Barack Obama’s speeches. He elaborates a lot on the issues of his belonging to a specific nation using the archetypal metaphor «nation is family» and makes it even clearer in his book «Dreams from My Father». Thus he establishes a sound link between King’s idea of «kids in future» and his own of «kids have grown up and the dream has come true».

The link between these two concepts is not only ideological; it is grounded on real events: first black president in the U.S., broader rights of black people etc. But at the same time these real events get their metaphorical reflection in Obama’s speech. This allows Obama to bring his recipients" attention once again to the achievements of the society and thus inspire them for new steps.

It is interesting to mention that this metaphorical link between King and Obama «father — son» is supported in a range of technical rhetoric devices. Many investigators say that Obama’s voice and style of speaking is very close to King’s:

quite low baritone;

explicitly long pauses in the middle of the sentence;

use of «black church» rhetoric devices (type of address to the audience, primarily).

So, the link between King and Obama is seen on several levels.

On the factual level it is represented in the fact that a person with dark skin has finally reached the highest possible post in the U.S.

On the technical level it is represented in the close prosodic scheme of King’s and Obama’s speeches.

On the ideological level it is represented in the use of archetypal metaphors on two sub-levels: purely in the speech and in the general image of the politician.

These three points allow Obama to use as an image potential not only his personal achievements bur also a historical background of his forefathers.

Works cited

Black M. Models and metaphors. — Ithaca, 1962. — 267 p.

Bourdieu P. Language and Symbolic Power. — Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.

B owers J.W., Osborn M. A ttitudinal effects of selected types of concluding metaphors in persuasive speeches // Speech Monographs. — 1966.

— V ol. 33. — P. 147−155.

Burke K. A grammar of motives. — Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. — 553 p.

Campbell J. The hero with a thousand faces. — Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.

C arpenter R.H. America’s Tragic Metaphor: Our Twentieth-Century Combatants as Frontiersmen // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1990. — V

ol. 76. — № 1. — P. 1−22.

Charteris-Black J. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. — London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Chemerinsky J., Kisabeth K. Tracing Steps in A Historic Election // Denver University Law Review — 2009. — № 86. — P. 615−632.

Chilton P., Schäffner C. Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Social Interaction / Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). — London: Sage, 1997.

Gray R.M. Archetypal explorations: an integrative approach to human behavior. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Hall C.S., Nordby V.J. A primer of Jungian psychology. — New York: New American library, 1999.

Hehner R.M. Patriots, Plumbers, and Our Better Angels: The Establishment of Ethos in the Rhetoric of the 2008 Presidential Campaigns of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama. Thesis. — Butler University, 2009.

Hofstede G.H. Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. — Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.

Knowles, Murray. Introducing Metaphor. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Lakoff G. Metaphor in Politics: an Open Letter to the Internet from George Lakoff //

http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-1.htm

Lakoff G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor // Metaphor and Thought / Ed. Ortony, Andrew. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. — P. 202−251.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. — xiii, 241 p.

Morillas J.M. Extensionalist Semantics, Cognitive Linguistics and Emotive Expressions: [

http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2002;martin.htm]

Nida E. Toward a Science of Translating. — Leiden: E. J Brill, 1964.

O sborn M. A rchetypal metaphor in rhetoric: the light-dark family // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1967. — V

ol. 53. — P. 115−126.

O sborn M. T he metaphor in public address // Speech Monographs. — 1962. — V ol.

29. — P. 223−224.

Pennycook A. Crirical Applied Linguistics. — Mahwah (NJ) & London: LEA, 2001.

Reddy, Michael J. The Conduit Metaphor — A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language // Metaphor and Thought / Ed. Ortony, Andrew. -Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. — P. 284−324.

Ritchie D.L. Context and Connection in Metaphor. — New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Thompson W. At the edge of history. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Vatz R. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation // Philosophy and Rhetoric. — 1973. — 6.

3. — P. 154−161.

Александрова О. В. Общие и частные проблемы филологии и когнитивной лингвистики // Концептуальное пространство языка: Сб. науч. тр. — Тамбов: ТГУ, 2005. — С. 40−46.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Метафора и дискурс. Вступительная статья // Теория метафоры. Сборник статей. — М.: Прогресс, 1990. — С. 5−32.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- 148 с.

Баранов А. Н. Русская политическая метафора (материалы к словарю) / А. Н. Баранов, Ю. Н. Караулов. — М.: Институт русского языка РАН, 1991. — 193 с.

Будаев Э. В. Метафорический образ России в современном мире. — Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2009. — 305 с.

Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А. П. Зарубежная политическая лингвистика. — М.: Флинта; Наука, 2008. — 352 с.

Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А. П. Зарубежная политическая метафорология. — Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2008. — 248 с.

Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А. П. Метафора в политической коммуникации. — М.: Флинта; Наука, 2008. — 248 с.

Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А. П. Риторическое направление в исследовании политической метафоры // Respectus Philologicus.- Вильнюс, 2006. — № 9(14). — С. 10−19.

Будаев Э.В., Чудинов А. П. Современная политическая лингвистика. — Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2006. — 267 с.

Добренко Е. Метафора власти: Литература сталинской эпохи в историческом освещении. — Мюнхен, 1993. — 250 с.

Ивин А. А. Основы теории аргументации. — М.: Владос, 1997. — 351 с.

Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: Личность, концепты, дискурсы. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — 477 с.

Ключарев Г. А. Языковая реальность и политический имидж // Обновление России: трудный поиск решений. — 1995. — Вып. 3.- С. 211−216.

Кондратьева О. Н. Истоки формирования некоторых зооморфных метафор в политической речи (на материале переписки И. Грозного) // Современная политическая лингвистика. — Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2003. — C. 81−83.

Красных В.В. «Свой» среди «чужих»: миф или реальность? — М.: Гнозис, 2003. — 375 с.

Крюкова Н. Ф. Метафорика и смысловая организация текста. — Тверь: Твер. гос. ун-т, 2000. — 162 с.

Лассан Э. Дискурс власти и инакомыслия в СССР: когнитивно-риторический анализ. — Вильнюс: Изд-во Вильнюсского ун-та, 1995 — 232 с.

Макаров М. Л. Интерпретативный анализ дискурса в малой группе. — Тверь: Изд-во Твер. ун-та, 1998. — 200 с.

Молчанова Г. Г. Английский как неродной: текст, стиль, культура, коммуникация. — М.: ОЛМА Медиа Групп, 2007. — 384 c.

Постникова Л. В. Просодия политического дискурса в британской и американской лингвокультурах. — М.: Либроком, 2011. — 200 с.

Рикер П. Герменевтика. Этика. Политика: Московские лекции и интервью. — М.: Academia, 1995. — 160 с.

Ричардс А. Философия риторики // Теория метафоры. — М.: Прогресс, 1990. — С. 44−67.

Сиротинина О. Б. Тексты, текстоиды, дискурсы в зоне разговорной речи // Человек — Текст — Культура / под ред. Н. А. Купиной, Т. В. Матвеевой. — Екатеринбург: УГУ, 1994. — С. 105−124.

Томашевский Б. В. Краткий курс поэтики. — М.: КДУ, 2010. — 192 с.

Цицерон. Оратор // Античные теории языка и стиля. — СПб.: Алетейя, 1996. — 368 с.

Чудинов А. П. Политическая лингвистика. — Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2006. — 208 с.

Чудинов А. П. Россия в метафорическом зеркале: когнитивное исследование политической метафоры. — Екатеринбург, 2001. — 238 с.

Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. — 368 с.

Шмелева Т. В. Модель речевого жанра // Жанры речи. — Саратов: Колледж, 1997. — С. 91−97.

Эльсберг Я. Образ в публицистике / Я. Эльсберг // Советская печать. -

1960. — № 10. — С. 18−27.

Якобсон Р. Два аспекта языка и два типа афатических нарушений // Теория метафоры. — М.: Прогресс, 1990. — С. 110−132.

Баранов А. Н. Русская политическая метафора (материалы к словарю) / А. Н. Баранов, Ю. Н. Караулов. — М.: Институт русского языка РАН, 1991. — С. 190.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. — xiii, 241 p.

Томашевский Б. В. Краткий курс поэтики. — М.: КДУ, 2010. — C. 26.

Молчанова Г. Г. Английский как неродной: текст, стиль, культура, коммуникация. — М.: ОЛМА Медиа Групп, 2007. — C. 102.

Цицерон. Оратор // Античные теории языка и стиля. — СПб: Алетейя, 1996. — С. 231.

Чудинов А. П. Россия в метафорическом зеркале: когнитивное исследование политической метафоры. — Екатеринбург, 2001. — С. 37.

Александрова О. В. Общие и частные проблемы филологии и когнитивной лингвистики // Концептуальное пространство языка: Сб. науч. тр. — Тамбов: ТГУ, 2005. — С. 43.

Красных В.В. «Свой» среди «чужих»: миф или реальность? — М.: Гнозис, 2003. — С. 113.

Рикер П. Герменевтика. Этика. Политика: Московские лекции и интервью. — М.: Academia, 1995. — С. 101.

Крюкова Н. Ф. Метафорика и смысловая организация текста. — Тверь: Твер. гос. ун-т, 2000. — С. 7.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Метафора и дискурс. Вступительная статья // Теория метафоры. Сборник статей. — М.: Прогресс, 1990. — С. 13.

Lakoff, George. and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. — P. 270.

Knowles, Murray. Introducing Metaphor. New York: Routledge, 2006. — P. 30.

R eddy, Michael J. «T he Conduit Metaphor — A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language» // Metaphor and Thought. E d. O

rtony, Andrew. -C ambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. — P. 286−292/.

Lakoff G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor // Metaphor and Thought / Ed. Ortony, Andrew. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. — P. 204.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. — P. 139.

Ritchie D.L. Context and Connection in Metaphor. — New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. — P. 35.

Ibid. — P. 34.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. — P. 142−143.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. — P. 243−244.

Ibid. — P. 270.

Thompson W. At the edge of history. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. — P. 77.

Hall C.S., Nordby V.J. A primer of Jungian psychology. — New York: New American library, 1999. — P. 99.

Thompson W. At the edge of history. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Gray R.M. Archetypal explorations: an integrative approach to human behavior. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. — P. 208.

Thompson W. At the edge of history. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. — P. 81.

Hofstede G.H. Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. — Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.

Campbell J. The hero with a thousand faces. — Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968. — P. 66.

Макаров М. Л. Интерпретативный анализ дискурса в малой группе. — Тверь: Изд-во Твер. ун-та, 1998. — C 68−75.

Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: Личность, концепты, дискурсы. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — C. 192.

Сиротинина О. Б. Тексты, текстоиды, дискурсы в зоне разговорной речи // Человек — Текст — Культура / под ред. Н. А. Купиной, Т. В. Матвеевой. — Екатеринбург: УГУ, 1994. — С. 122.

Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: Личность, концепты, дискурсы. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — C. 194.

Шмелева Т. В. Модель речевого жанра // Жанры речи. — Саратов: Колледж, 1997. — С. 91−97.

Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: Личность, концепты, дискурсы. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — C. 194.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- С. 6.

Ibid.

Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. — C. 41.

Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: Личность, концепты, дискурсы. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — C. 234.

Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: Личность, концепты, дискурсы. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — C. 234.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- С. 6.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- С. 21.

Ключарев Г. А. Языковая реальность и политический имидж // Обновление России: трудный поиск решений. — 1995. — Вып. 3.- С. 214.

Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. — C. 29.

Chilton P., Schäffner C. Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Social Interaction / Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). — London: Sage, 1997.

Chilton P., Schäffner C. Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Social Interaction / Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). — London: Sage, 1997. — P. 209−210.

Bourdieu P. Language and Symbolic Power. — Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Chilton P., Schäffner C. Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Social Interaction / Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). — London: Sage, 1997. — P. 206.

Pennycook A. Crirical Applied Linguistics. — Mahwah (NJ) & London: LEA, 2001. — P. 85−89.

Charteris-Black J. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. — London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. — P. 26.

Charteris-Black J. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. — London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. — P. 28.

Лассан Э. Дискурс власти и инакомыслия в СССР: когнитивно-риторический анализ. — Вильнюс: Изд-во Вильнюсского ун-та, 1995 — 232 с.

Добренко Е. Метафора власти: Литература сталинской эпохи в историческом освещении. — Мюнхен, 1993. — С. 161.

Там же. — С. 56.

Charteris-Black J. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. — London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. — P. 15.

Эльсберг Я. Образ в публицистике / Я. Эльсберг // Советская печать. — 1960. — № 10. -

С. 20.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- C. 17.

Чудинов А. П. Политическая лингвистика. — Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2006. — C. 94.

Лассан Э. Дискурс власти и инакомыслия в СССР: когнитивно-риторический анализ. — Вильнюс: Изд-во Вильнюсского ун-та, 1995. — C. 38.

Добренко Е. Метафора власти: Литература сталинской эпохи в историческом освещении. — Мюнхен, 1993. — C. 161.

Добренко Е. Метафора власти: Литература сталинской эпохи в историческом освещении. — Мюнхен, 1993. — C. 56.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- С. 189.

Ibid. — С. 190.

Баранов А. Н. Парламентские дебаты: традиции новации. Советский политический язык (от ритуала к метафоре) / А. Н. Баранов, Е. Г. Казакевич. — М.: Знание, 1991.- С. 190.

O sborn M. A rchetypal metaphor in rhetoric: the light-dark family // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1967.

— V ol. 53. — P. 116.

O sborn M. A rchetypal metaphor in rhetoric: the light-dark family // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1967.

— V ol. 53. — P. 116.

Ibid.

O sborn M. A rchetypal metaphor in rhetoric: the light-dark family // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1967. — V ol.

53. — P. 116.

O sborn M. A rchetypal metaphor in rhetoric: the light-dark family // Quarterly Journal of Speech.

— 1967. — V ol. 53. — P. 120.

C arpenter R.H. America’s Tragic Metaphor: Our Twentieth-Century Combatants as Frontiersmen // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1990. — V

ol. 76. — № 1. — P. 1−22.

C arpenter R.H. America’s Tragic Metaphor: Our Twentieth-Century Combatants as Frontiersmen // Quarterly Journal of Speech. — 1990. — V ol. 76.

— № 1. — P. 4.

Nida E. Toward a Science of Translating. — Leiden: E. J Brill, 1964. — P. 62.

Morillas J.M. Extensionalist Semantics, Cognitive Linguistics and Emotive Expressions: [

http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2002;martin.htm]

Chemerinsky J., Kisabeth K. Tracing Steps in A Historic Election // Denver University Law Review — 2009. — № 86. — P. 616.

Qtd. in Chemerinsky J., Kisabeth K. Tracing Steps in A Historic Election // Denver University Law Review — 2009. — № 86. — P. 617.

Hehner R.M. Patriots, Plumbers, and Our Better Angels: The Establishment of Ethos in the Rhetoric of the 2008 Presidential Campaigns of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama. Thesis. — Butler University, 2009. — P. 23.

Qtd. In Vatz R. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation // Philosophy and Rhetoric. — 1973. — 6.

3. — P. 157.

Ibid. — P. 156.

Ивин А. А. Основы теории аргументации. — М.: Владос, 1997. — С. 4.

Ibid. — C. 3.

See: www.pattiwood.net/

Qtd. in: www.pattiwood.net/