1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 政治篇章中的來源域、隱喻情節與意識形態： 臺灣總統演說中使用的「民主」隱喻
Source Domains, Scenarios and Ideologies in Political Discourse: DEMOCRACY in Taiwan Presidential Addresses
作者 許筱翎
Hsu, Hsiao-Ling
貢獻者 賴惠玲<br>劉吉軒
Lai, Huei-ling<br>Liu, Jyi-Shane
許筱翎
Hsu, Hsiao-Ling
關鍵詞 隱喻
來源域
隱喻情節
意識形態
政治篇章
來源域驗證
語篇歷史分析
metaphor
source domain
scenario
ideology
political discourse
source domain verification
discourse-historical approach
日期 2022
上傳時間 8-Feb-2023 15:23:20 (UTC+8)
摘要 隱喻在語言中無處不在。在政治篇章中，隱喻在傳達意識形態和政治態度方面扮演著重要的角色。在文獻中，政治篇章隱喻的分析與討論主要集中在來源域所隱含的意識形態上，使來源域驗證成為獲取先備知識以進行進一步分析、解釋與討論的核心要素。此外，政治篇章中隱喻的詮釋需要社會政治和歷史等背景知識。為了最好地解釋隱喻在政治篇章中的使用，本研究試圖採用整合來源域驗證程序和語篇歷史分析的框架來檢查臺灣總統演講中關於民主的隱喻使用。臺灣的民主化是一個令人難以忘懷的故事，充滿了血淚汗水與歡樂。隨著臺灣民主的發展，總統們經常使用豐富的隱喻表達與追求民主有關的過程、障礙和狀態。為了充分理解並進一步明確評估總統/政府的意圖與其隱含的態度和意識形態，本研究根據來源域、隱喻情節和意識形態比較並對比了民主隱喻的使用模式。本研究旨在回答三個研究問題：(A) 1948 年至 2021 年臺灣總統演講中，民主隱喻使用的來源域為何？觸發來源域概念的隱喻關鍵字為何？(B) 民主隱喻的來源域中強調了哪些隱喻情節？(C) 民主隱喻的隱喻情節中隱含什麼意識形態（推論、評價和態度）？
本研究的語料為臺灣總統在 1948 年至 2021 年間，在三個重要場合發表的公開演講：總統就職典禮、國慶與元旦。本研究整合了一套方法(MeKDoSI)用以提取關於民主的隱喻。此方法包含兩個部分：隱喻分析和意識形態闡釋。關於隱喻分析，主要有三個步驟。首先，遵循Metaphor Identification Procedures 與Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit確定含有「民主」詞語的語料中，其詞語是字面意義還是隱喻意義，並檢查概念上的跨域映射的潛在可能性。其次，根據民主隱喻表現中出現的隱喻關鍵詞提出潛在的來源域，然後採用來源域驗證程序來驗證所提出的來源域。第三，為了進一步梳理民主隱喻的細微差別，本研究根據每個來源域的框架(frames)和共現的上下文資訊，進一步分析來源域中被強調的隱喻情節。在意識形態詮釋方面，採用語篇歷史的方法來探索以及解釋嵌入在最主要的隱喻情節中的意識形態含義。採用語篇歷史的方法，本研究進行兩個層面的分析。在語言層面，根據民主隱喻的語言表現和語篇策略(discursive strategies)對語料進行分析與檢視。在社會政治和歷史層面，將與語篇事件有關的歷史和社會政治背景知識納入分析、詮釋和討論。
結果顯示，民主隱喻主要使用四個來源域：WAR、BUILDING、JOURNEY 和 ORGANISM。隱喻情節分析顯示，隱喻情節的使用反映臺灣民主化的發展，並且隱含總統們/政府們對於臺灣民主發展的相關評價與態度。基於語言、歷史和社會政治方面的支持性證據，本研究顯示，每位總統對民主的議題都有不同的評價和態度。本研究為隱喻分析和意識形態詮釋提供實用且嚴謹的分析框架以及實證證據，支持並驗證現有隱喻理論中的理論假設，並描繪總統們/政府們如何概念化臺灣民主的全面圖景。
Metaphor is omnipresent in languages. In political discourse, metaphor plays a salient role in conveying ideologies and political attitudes. In the existing literature, the discussion mainly focuses on the ideologies that the source domains entail, making source domain verification a central element in gaining prior knowledge for further analysis, interpretation, and discussion. Furthermore, meaning interpretation of the metaphorical expressions in political discourse requires socio-political and historical knowledge. In order to best account for the use of metaphors in political discourse, this study attempts to examine the diachronic use of metaphor on DEMOCRACY in Taiwanese presidential addresses by employing a framework integrating source domain verification procedure and the discourse-historical approach. The democratization in Taiwan is an unforgettable story full of blood, tears, sweat, and joy. With the growth of democracy in Taiwan, presidents often address the processes, obstacles, and conditions in relation to the pursuit of democracy with bountiful metaphorical expressions. To fully understand and further explicitly evaluate the intention and the embedded attitudes and ideologies of the presidents/goverments, this research compares and contrasts the usage patterns of metaphor on DEMOCRACY based on source domains, scenarios, and ideological implications. Specifically, this current reseach aims to answer the three research questions: (A) What are the source domain concepts used in metaphor concerning 民主mínzhǔ in Taiwanese presidential addresses from 1948 to 2021? What are the metaphorical keywords that trigger the source domain concepts? (B) What scenarios are highlighted in the source domain concepts? (C) What ideologies (inferences, evaluations, and attitudes) can be drawn from the scenarios?

The data under examination are public addresses delivered by presidents of Taiwan between 1948 and 2021 in three momentous occasions: presidential inaugural ceremony, National Day, and New Year’s Day. An integrated framework (MeKDoSI) is employed to extract metaphor on DEMOCRACY. Two parts are involved: metaphorical analysis and ideology interpretation. For metaphrocial analysis, three steps are adopted. First, Metaphor Identification Procedures and Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit are followed to determine whether or not the words in the concordance lines containing mínzhǔ ‘democracy’ are in literal or metaphorical senses and to examine the potential possibility of a cross-domain mapping at the conceptual level. Second, potential source domains are proposed based on the metaphorical keywords occuring in the metaphorical expressions and then source domain verification procedures are adopted to verify the proposed source domains. Third, to further tease out the nuances in metaphor on DEMOCRACY, this research further analyzes the scenarios highlighted in the source domains based on the frames of each source domain and the co-occuring contextual information. As for ideology intepretaiton, the discourse-historical approach is employed to explore and interpret the ideological implications embedded in the use of the most dominant scenarios. With discourse-historical approach, a two-level analysis is conducted. At linguistic level, the data are scrutinized based on linguistic realizations of metaphor on DEMOCRACY and the discursive strategies employed at linguistic level. At socio-political and historical level, the relavent historical and socio-political background knowledge in which the discursive events are situated are incorporated into analysis, interpretation, and discussion.

The results show that four main source domains are manifested in the addresses: WAR, BUILDING, JOURNEY, and ORGANISM. Analyses of scenarios reveal that the highlighted scenarios reflect the pace of democratization in Taiwan, and that specific inferences, evaluations and attitudes are embedded through various manifestations of scenarios. The ideological implications are drawn from the most prevailing scenarios profiled in presidential addresses and relevant historical and socio-political context. Based on supportive evidence from both linguistic and historical and socio-political aspects, this research reveals that each president casts different inferences, evaluations, and attitudes toward the issues of democracy. This current study provides practical and rigorous annotation framework on metaphor and ideology and solid empirical evidence to support the theoretical assumption in the existing theory of metaphor and to depict a comprehensive picture for presidents’ conceptualization of DEMOCRACY in Taiwan.
參考文獻 Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested-Underlying reasons for source to target
domain pairings in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In Proceedings of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273-302).
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2003). Conceptual Metaphors- Ontology-
based representation and corpora driven Mapping Principles. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language (pp. 36-42).
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2004). From lexical semantics to
conceptual metaphors: Mapping principle verification with WordNet and SUMO. In Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), Singapore: COLIPS (pp. 99-106).
Ahrens, K., Liu, H. L., Lee, C. Y., Gong, S. P., Fang, S. Y., & Hsu, Y. Y. (2007).
Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain and language, 100(2), 163-171.
Ahrens, K. (2019). Speeches by the Republic of China (Taiwan) Presidents
Corpus. Research Centre for Professional Communication in English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Accessed on March 5, 2020, from http://rcpce.engl.polyu.edu.hk/
Ahrens, K., & Jiang, M. (2020). Source Domain Verification Using Corpus-based Tools. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(1), 43–55.
Ahrens, K., Jiang, M., & Zeng, W. H. (2021). Building metaphors in Hong Kong
policy addresses. Metaphor in Language and Culture across World Englishes, 105.
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.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers`
conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological
review, 112(1), 193.
Burgers, C. (2016). Conceptualizing change in communication through
metaphor. Journal of Communication, 66(2), 250-265.
Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K. (2020). Change in metaphorical framing: Metaphors of
trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790–2014). Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 260-279.
Council of Europe. (n.d.) Retrieved November 27, 2022, from
https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. A&C Black.
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied
linguistics, 27(4), 671-690.
Cibulskienė, J. (2012). The development of the journey metaphor in political
discourse: Time-specific changes. Metaphor and the Social World, 2(2), 131-153.
Chao, L., & Myers, R. H. (1994). The first Chinese democracy: Political
development of the Republic of China on Taiwan, 1986-1994. Asian Survey, 34(3), 213-230.
Chilton, P., & Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of
The Common European House`. Discourse & Society, 4(1), 7-31.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005
election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563-581.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Metaphor in political discourse. In Politicians and
rhetoric (pp. 28-51). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Charteris-Black, J. (2017). Competition metaphors and ideology: Life as a race. In The
Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics (pp. 202-217). Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2019). Metaphors of Brexit: No Cherries on the Cake?.
Cham: Springer Nature.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors.
Cognitive science, 21(3), 247-282.
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., & Sung, Y. H. (2003). Stock markets as ocean water: A
Corpus-based, comparative study of Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish. In Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 124-133).
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2005, December). Source domains as
concept domains in metaphorical expressions. In International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, Volume 10, Number 4, December 2005: Special Issue on Selected Papers from CLSW-5 (pp. 553-570).
Chung, S. F., & Ahrens, K. (2006). Source domain determination- WordNet-SUMO
and collocation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 1-4)
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., Cheng, C. P., Huang, C. R., & Šimon, P. (2007). Computing
thresholds of linguistic saliency. In Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 126-135).
Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2010). Using collocations to establish the source domains
of conceptual metaphors. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 38(2), 183-223.
Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy. Yale university press.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics (Vol. 6). J. Benjamins Pub.
Dreyfuss, C. (2015). Taiwanese student sit-in for democratic reform (Wild Lily
Movement) 1990. Retrieved June 27, 2022, from https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/taiwanese-student-sit-democratic-reform-wild-lily-movement-1990
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022). The Democracy Index 2021: The China challenge.
Ervas, F., Rossi, M. G., Ojha, A., & Indurkhya, B. (2021). The Double Framing Effect
of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2025.
Fairclough N., Mulderrig J., & Wodak R. (2011) Critical Discourse Analysis. In Van
Dijk, T. A. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Sage.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and
the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2018). War metaphors in public
discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(1), 1-18.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought, 109-128.
Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image
schemas and their transformations.
Gibbs Jr, R. W., Lima, P. L. C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in
embodied experience. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.
Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind &
Language, 21(3), 434-458.
Gibbs, R. W. (2009). Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor
theory?. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 14-36.
Girnth, H. (1996). Texts In Political Discourse-A Discourse-Oriented Description of
Stylistically Different Texts. Muttersprache, 106(1), 66-80.
Gong, S. P., & Ahrens, K. (2007). Processing conceptual metaphors in on-going
discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 313-330.
Gong, S. P., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2008). Chinese word sketch and mapping
principles: A corpus-based study of conceptual metaphors using the building source domain. International Journal of Computer Processing of Languages, 21(01), 3-17.
Halliwell, S. (1987). The Poetics of Aristotle: translation and commentary. University
of North Carolina Press.
Hampl, M. (2020). The use of the PATH and FORCE image schemas in Barack
Obama’s counterterrorism discourse against ISIL. Critical Discourse Studies, 1-16.
Hong, T., He, X., Tillman, R., Zhao, X., & Deng, Y. (2017). The vertical and horizontal spatial-temporal conceptual metaphor representation of Chinese temporal words. Psychology, 8(11), 1679.
Hood, S. J. (2020). The Kuomintang and the democratization of Taiwan. Routledge.
Ho, M. S. (2015). Occupy congress in Taiwan: Political opportunity, threat, and the
Sunflower Movement. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15(1), 69-97.
Jacobs, J. B. (2012). Democratizing Taiwan. Brill.
Jacobs, J. B. (2019). Myth and Reality in Taiwan’s Democratisation. Asian Studies
Review, 43(1), 164-177.
Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). Itri-04-08 the sketch
engine. Information Technology, 105, 116.
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P.,
& Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7-36.
Kövecses, Z. (1994). Tocqueville’s Passionate ‘Beast’: A Linguistic Analysis of the
Concept of American Democracy. Metaphor and Symbol, 9(2), 113–133.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2009). Metaphor, culture, and discourse: The pressure of coherence.
In Metaphor and discourse (pp. 11-24). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive linguistics, 28(2), 321-347.
Lai, H. L., & Chung, S. F. (2018). Color polysemy: Black and white in Taiwanese
languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 16(1), 95-130.
Lai, H. L. (2019). Colour terms in Chinese. In The Routledge Handbook of Chinese
Applied Linguistics (pp. 105-117). Routledge.
Lakoff G., & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-
schemas?.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and Thought (second edition) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind A cognitive scientist`s guide to your brain
and its politics. New York: Penguin.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the
gulf. Cognitive Semiotics, 4(2), 5-19.
Lakoff, G. (2014). The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and
Frame the Debate. Hartford, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, G. (2016). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Third Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, A. (1863). Address Delivered at the Dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg. November, 19, 1863.
Lu, L. W. L., & Ahrens, K. (2008). Ideological Influence on BUILDING Metaphors in Taiwanese Presidential Addresses. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 383–408.
Liu, N. (2011) Taiwanese Student Sit-in for Democratic Reform (Wild Lily
Movement) 1990. Retrieved June 27, 2022, from https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/taiwanese-student-sit-democratic-reform-wild-lily-movement-1990
Mandler, J. M., & Cánovas, C. P. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and
Cognition, 6(4), 510-532.
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol,
21(1), 23–38.
Musolff, A. (2014). Metaphor in the discourse-historical approach. In. Hart, C. & Cap, P. (Eds), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 45-66). London Bloomsbury Publishing
Musolff, A. (2015). Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(1), 41-56.
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Musolff, A. (2017). Truths, Lies and Figurative Scenarios: Metaphors at the Heart of
Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(5), 641–657.
Musolff, A. (2020). Metaphors for the Nation: Conceptualization of Its BODY and/or
PERSON. In Cultural Conceptualizations in Language and Communication (pp. 3-23). Springer, Cham.
Muyard, F. (2008). Taiwan Elections 2008: Ma Ying-jeou’s victory and the KMT’s
return to power. China Perspectives, 2008 (2008/1), 79-94.
Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological review, 86(3), 161.
Potts, A., & Semino, E. (2019). Cancer as a Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2),
81-95.
Ranjan, R. (2016). Taiwan’s Election 2016 and Cross-Strait Policy. ICWA View Point.
Reisigl, M. (2003). "Wie man eine Nation herbeiredet. Eine diskursanalytische
Untersuchung zur sprachlichen Konstruktion der österreichischen Nation und österreichischen Identität in politischen Fest- und Gedenkreden. Wien [PhD Dissertation].
Reisigl, M. (2008). Rhetoric of political speeches. In R. Wodak, & V. Koller. (Eds.),
Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, 4, 243-270
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In R.
Wodak & M. Meyer. (Eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 87–121).
London: Sage.
Reisigl and Wodak (2016). The discourse-historical approach (pp. 23-61). In Wodak,
R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies. Sage.
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2015). How viruses and
beasts affect our opinions (or not): The role of extendedness in metaphorical framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 245-263.
Roy, D. (2003). Taiwan: A political history. Cornell University Press.
Rubinstein, M. A. (2015). Taiwan: A New History. New York: Routledge.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse (p. 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A., & Rayson, P.
(2015). The online use of Violence and Journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMJ supportive & palliative care, 7(1), 60-66.
Sontag, S. (1978). Illness as metaphor. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shih, C. F. (2007). Ethnic Politics in Taiwan since Democratization (in Chinese).
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, 4(4), 1–26.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach.
In Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (Eds), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 63-105). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor—now new and
improved!. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9(1), 26-64.
Steen, G. J. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor
theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67-72.
Tipler, C. N., & Ruscher, J. B. (2019). Dehumanizing representations of women: the s
shaping of hostile sexist attitudes through animalistic metaphors. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), 109-118.
Thibodeau, P.H. and Boroditsky, L. (2011) Metaphors we think with: the role of
metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One 6, e167829. Elmore, K.
Thibodeau, P.H. and Boroditsky, L. (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly
influence reasoning. PLoS One 8, e52961
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2015). Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic
opinion landscape. PloS one, 10(7), e0133939.
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017). How linguistic metaphor
scaffolds reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(11), 852-863.
Thibodeau, P. (2017). The function of metaphor framing, deliberate or otherwise, in a
social world. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 270-290.
Tsai, I.W. (2021). Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy: A Force for Good in the
Changing International Order. Foreign Affairs, 100, 74-84.
Wachman, A. M. (1994). Taiwan: National identity and democratization. ME
Sharpe.
Wei, J. M. Y. (2001). Virtual missiles: Metaphors and allusions in Taiwanese political
campaigns. Lexington Books.
Wei, J. M. Y. (2019). (Un) doing nationalism through metaphorical scenario:
a case of modern China/Taiwan. In Colloquium: New Philologies (Vol. 4, pp. 191-210).
Wei, J. M. Y., & Duann, R. F. (2019). Who are we?: Contesting meanings in the
speeches of national leaders in Taiwan during the authoritarian period. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(5), 760-781.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research: An Introduction.
CA: Wadsworth Pub and Cengage learning.
Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research
on Language & Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 185-193.
Wodak, R. (2001). The Discourse-Historical Approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 63–94). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory
and methodology. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2, 1-33.
Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). European identities and the revival of nationalism in
the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Journal of language and politics, 14(1), 87-109.
Wong, J. (2001). Dynamic democratization in Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary
China, 10(27), 339-362.
Wu, S. (2021). A corpus-based study of the time orientation of qian “front” and hou
“back” in Chinese. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor
and thought, 247-261.
Zeng, W. H., Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K. (2021). Framing metaphor use over
time: ‘Free Economy’ metaphors in Hong Kong political discourse (1997–2017). Lingua, 252, 102955.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
106555502
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106555502
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲<br>劉吉軒zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei-ling<br>Liu, Jyi-Shaneen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 許筱翎zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsu, Hsiao-Lingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 許筱翎zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Hsu, Hsiao-Lingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2022en_US
dc.date.accessioned 8-Feb-2023 15:23:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 8-Feb-2023 15:23:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 8-Feb-2023 15:23:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106555502en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143335-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 106555502zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隱喻在語言中無處不在。在政治篇章中，隱喻在傳達意識形態和政治態度方面扮演著重要的角色。在文獻中，政治篇章隱喻的分析與討論主要集中在來源域所隱含的意識形態上，使來源域驗證成為獲取先備知識以進行進一步分析、解釋與討論的核心要素。此外，政治篇章中隱喻的詮釋需要社會政治和歷史等背景知識。為了最好地解釋隱喻在政治篇章中的使用，本研究試圖採用整合來源域驗證程序和語篇歷史分析的框架來檢查臺灣總統演講中關於民主的隱喻使用。臺灣的民主化是一個令人難以忘懷的故事，充滿了血淚汗水與歡樂。隨著臺灣民主的發展，總統們經常使用豐富的隱喻表達與追求民主有關的過程、障礙和狀態。為了充分理解並進一步明確評估總統/政府的意圖與其隱含的態度和意識形態，本研究根據來源域、隱喻情節和意識形態比較並對比了民主隱喻的使用模式。本研究旨在回答三個研究問題：(A) 1948 年至 2021 年臺灣總統演講中，民主隱喻使用的來源域為何？觸發來源域概念的隱喻關鍵字為何？(B) 民主隱喻的來源域中強調了哪些隱喻情節？(C) 民主隱喻的隱喻情節中隱含什麼意識形態（推論、評價和態度）？
本研究的語料為臺灣總統在 1948 年至 2021 年間，在三個重要場合發表的公開演講：總統就職典禮、國慶與元旦。本研究整合了一套方法(MeKDoSI)用以提取關於民主的隱喻。此方法包含兩個部分：隱喻分析和意識形態闡釋。關於隱喻分析，主要有三個步驟。首先，遵循Metaphor Identification Procedures 與Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit確定含有「民主」詞語的語料中，其詞語是字面意義還是隱喻意義，並檢查概念上的跨域映射的潛在可能性。其次，根據民主隱喻表現中出現的隱喻關鍵詞提出潛在的來源域，然後採用來源域驗證程序來驗證所提出的來源域。第三，為了進一步梳理民主隱喻的細微差別，本研究根據每個來源域的框架(frames)和共現的上下文資訊，進一步分析來源域中被強調的隱喻情節。在意識形態詮釋方面，採用語篇歷史的方法來探索以及解釋嵌入在最主要的隱喻情節中的意識形態含義。採用語篇歷史的方法，本研究進行兩個層面的分析。在語言層面，根據民主隱喻的語言表現和語篇策略(discursive strategies)對語料進行分析與檢視。在社會政治和歷史層面，將與語篇事件有關的歷史和社會政治背景知識納入分析、詮釋和討論。
結果顯示，民主隱喻主要使用四個來源域：WAR、BUILDING、JOURNEY 和 ORGANISM。隱喻情節分析顯示，隱喻情節的使用反映臺灣民主化的發展，並且隱含總統們/政府們對於臺灣民主發展的相關評價與態度。基於語言、歷史和社會政治方面的支持性證據，本研究顯示，每位總統對民主的議題都有不同的評價和態度。本研究為隱喻分析和意識形態詮釋提供實用且嚴謹的分析框架以及實證證據，支持並驗證現有隱喻理論中的理論假設，並描繪總統們/政府們如何概念化臺灣民主的全面圖景。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Metaphor is omnipresent in languages. In political discourse, metaphor plays a salient role in conveying ideologies and political attitudes. In the existing literature, the discussion mainly focuses on the ideologies that the source domains entail, making source domain verification a central element in gaining prior knowledge for further analysis, interpretation, and discussion. Furthermore, meaning interpretation of the metaphorical expressions in political discourse requires socio-political and historical knowledge. In order to best account for the use of metaphors in political discourse, this study attempts to examine the diachronic use of metaphor on DEMOCRACY in Taiwanese presidential addresses by employing a framework integrating source domain verification procedure and the discourse-historical approach. The democratization in Taiwan is an unforgettable story full of blood, tears, sweat, and joy. With the growth of democracy in Taiwan, presidents often address the processes, obstacles, and conditions in relation to the pursuit of democracy with bountiful metaphorical expressions. To fully understand and further explicitly evaluate the intention and the embedded attitudes and ideologies of the presidents/goverments, this research compares and contrasts the usage patterns of metaphor on DEMOCRACY based on source domains, scenarios, and ideological implications. Specifically, this current reseach aims to answer the three research questions: (A) What are the source domain concepts used in metaphor concerning 民主mínzhǔ in Taiwanese presidential addresses from 1948 to 2021? What are the metaphorical keywords that trigger the source domain concepts? (B) What scenarios are highlighted in the source domain concepts? (C) What ideologies (inferences, evaluations, and attitudes) can be drawn from the scenarios?

The data under examination are public addresses delivered by presidents of Taiwan between 1948 and 2021 in three momentous occasions: presidential inaugural ceremony, National Day, and New Year’s Day. An integrated framework (MeKDoSI) is employed to extract metaphor on DEMOCRACY. Two parts are involved: metaphorical analysis and ideology interpretation. For metaphrocial analysis, three steps are adopted. First, Metaphor Identification Procedures and Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit are followed to determine whether or not the words in the concordance lines containing mínzhǔ ‘democracy’ are in literal or metaphorical senses and to examine the potential possibility of a cross-domain mapping at the conceptual level. Second, potential source domains are proposed based on the metaphorical keywords occuring in the metaphorical expressions and then source domain verification procedures are adopted to verify the proposed source domains. Third, to further tease out the nuances in metaphor on DEMOCRACY, this research further analyzes the scenarios highlighted in the source domains based on the frames of each source domain and the co-occuring contextual information. As for ideology intepretaiton, the discourse-historical approach is employed to explore and interpret the ideological implications embedded in the use of the most dominant scenarios. With discourse-historical approach, a two-level analysis is conducted. At linguistic level, the data are scrutinized based on linguistic realizations of metaphor on DEMOCRACY and the discursive strategies employed at linguistic level. At socio-political and historical level, the relavent historical and socio-political background knowledge in which the discursive events are situated are incorporated into analysis, interpretation, and discussion.

The results show that four main source domains are manifested in the addresses: WAR, BUILDING, JOURNEY, and ORGANISM. Analyses of scenarios reveal that the highlighted scenarios reflect the pace of democratization in Taiwan, and that specific inferences, evaluations and attitudes are embedded through various manifestations of scenarios. The ideological implications are drawn from the most prevailing scenarios profiled in presidential addresses and relevant historical and socio-political context. Based on supportive evidence from both linguistic and historical and socio-political aspects, this research reveals that each president casts different inferences, evaluations, and attitudes toward the issues of democracy. This current study provides practical and rigorous annotation framework on metaphor and ideology and solid empirical evidence to support the theoretical assumption in the existing theory of metaphor and to depict a comprehensive picture for presidents’ conceptualization of DEMOCRACY in Taiwan.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgments iv
Chinese Abstract vi
English Abstract viii
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xiv

Chapter I Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 2
1.2 Democratization in Taiwan 6
1.3 Research Purpose and Research Questions 8
1.4 Contribution of this Dissertation 12
1.5 Organization of this Dissertation 13

Chapter II Literature Review 14
2.1 Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics 14
2.1.1 Contemporary Metaphor Theory 14
2.1.2 Empirical approaches 16
2.1.3 Metaphor in use 20
2.1.4 Scenarios in metaphor 22
2.2 Source Domain Verification 27
2.2.1 Using SUMO and WordNet 27
2.2.2 Using collocational patterns to enhance precision 32
2.2.3 Using SUMO, WordNet, dictionary, and collocational patterns 38
2.3 Metaphor and Ideology in Political Discourse 43
2.4 The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) 51
2.5 Remarks 59

Chapter III Methodology 62
3.1 Data Selection 63
3.2 Data Source and Description 64
3.3 Annotation Procedure 67
3.3.1 Metaphorical expressions and metaphorical keywords identification 67
3.3.2 Source domain verification 69
3.3.3 Metaphorical scenario identification 77
3.3.4 Discourse-historical approach (DHA) to interpret the ideologies embedded in scenarios and/or source domains 78

Chapter IV Analysis and Discussion 80
4.1 The Source Domain Concepts in Metaphor of DEMOCRACY 83
4.1.1 WAR 87
4.1.2 BUILDING 98
4.1.3 JOURNEY 109
4.1.4 ORGANISM 118
4.2 The Scenarios Highlighted in Source Domain Concepts 124
4.2.1. Scenarios in DEMOCRACY IS A WAR 125
4.2.2. Scenarios in DEMOCRACY IS A BUILDING 134
4.2.3 Scenarios in DEMOCRACY IS A JOURNEY 143
4.2.4 Scenarios in DEMOCRACY IS AN ORGANISM 150
4.3 Summary 155
4.3.1 Source domains in the three types of addresses 155
4.3.2 Scenarios in the three types of addresses 156

Chapter V Interpretations and Implications 161
5.1 Ideological Implications 162
5.1.1 Democracy 162
5.1.2 Ideological implications in presidents’ manifestations of scenarios 164
5.1.2.1 Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo (1948 to 1988) 173
5.1.2.2 Lee Teng-hui (1988 to 2000) 178
5.1.2.3 Chen Shui-bian (2000 to 2008) 183
5.1.2.4 Ma Ying-jeou (2008 to 2016) 187
5.1.2.5 Tsai Ying-wen (2016 to now) 191
5.2 Theoretical Implications 194
5.2.1 Data-driven analysis to metaphor and empirical evidence 194
5.2.2 Source domain and scenario 196
5.2.3 The invariance principle and partial mapping 196
5.2.4 The Discourse-Historical Approach 198

Chapter VI Conclusion 199
6.1 Concluding Remarks 199
6.2 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 201

References 203
Appendix: Full transcriptions and glosses of the instances 210		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 5598175 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106555502en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 來源域zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻情節zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 意識形態zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政治篇章zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 來源域驗證zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語篇歷史分析zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) metaphoren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) source domainen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) scenarioen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) ideologyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) political discourseen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) source domain verificationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) discourse-historical approachen_US
dc.title (題名) 政治篇章中的來源域、隱喻情節與意識形態： 臺灣總統演說中使用的「民主」隱喻zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Source Domains, Scenarios and Ideologies in Political Discourse: DEMOCRACY in Taiwan Presidential Addressesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested-Underlying reasons for source to target
domain pairings in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In Proceedings of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273-302).
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2003). Conceptual Metaphors- Ontology-
based representation and corpora driven Mapping Principles. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language (pp. 36-42).
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2004). From lexical semantics to
conceptual metaphors: Mapping principle verification with WordNet and SUMO. In Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), Singapore: COLIPS (pp. 99-106).
Ahrens, K., Liu, H. L., Lee, C. Y., Gong, S. P., Fang, S. Y., & Hsu, Y. Y. (2007).
Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain and language, 100(2), 163-171.
Ahrens, K. (2019). Speeches by the Republic of China (Taiwan) Presidents
Corpus. Research Centre for Professional Communication in English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Accessed on March 5, 2020, from http://rcpce.engl.polyu.edu.hk/
Ahrens, K., & Jiang, M. (2020). Source Domain Verification Using Corpus-based Tools. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(1), 43–55.
Ahrens, K., Jiang, M., & Zeng, W. H. (2021). Building metaphors in Hong Kong
policy addresses. Metaphor in Language and Culture across World Englishes, 105.
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.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers`
conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological
review, 112(1), 193.
Burgers, C. (2016). Conceptualizing change in communication through
metaphor. Journal of Communication, 66(2), 250-265.
Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K. (2020). Change in metaphorical framing: Metaphors of
trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790–2014). Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 260-279.
Council of Europe. (n.d.) Retrieved November 27, 2022, from
https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. A&C Black.
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied
linguistics, 27(4), 671-690.
Cibulskienė, J. (2012). The development of the journey metaphor in political
discourse: Time-specific changes. Metaphor and the Social World, 2(2), 131-153.
Chao, L., & Myers, R. H. (1994). The first Chinese democracy: Political
development of the Republic of China on Taiwan, 1986-1994. Asian Survey, 34(3), 213-230.
Chilton, P., & Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of
The Common European House`. Discourse & Society, 4(1), 7-31.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005
election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563-581.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Metaphor in political discourse. In Politicians and
rhetoric (pp. 28-51). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Charteris-Black, J. (2017). Competition metaphors and ideology: Life as a race. In The
Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics (pp. 202-217). Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2019). Metaphors of Brexit: No Cherries on the Cake?.
Cham: Springer Nature.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors.
Cognitive science, 21(3), 247-282.
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., & Sung, Y. H. (2003). Stock markets as ocean water: A
Corpus-based, comparative study of Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish. In Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 124-133).
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2005, December). Source domains as
concept domains in metaphorical expressions. In International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, Volume 10, Number 4, December 2005: Special Issue on Selected Papers from CLSW-5 (pp. 553-570).
Chung, S. F., & Ahrens, K. (2006). Source domain determination- WordNet-SUMO
and collocation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 1-4)
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., Cheng, C. P., Huang, C. R., & Šimon, P. (2007). Computing
thresholds of linguistic saliency. In Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 126-135).
Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2010). Using collocations to establish the source domains
of conceptual metaphors. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 38(2), 183-223.
Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy. Yale university press.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics (Vol. 6). J. Benjamins Pub.
Dreyfuss, C. (2015). Taiwanese student sit-in for democratic reform (Wild Lily
Movement) 1990. Retrieved June 27, 2022, from https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/taiwanese-student-sit-democratic-reform-wild-lily-movement-1990
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022). The Democracy Index 2021: The China challenge.
Ervas, F., Rossi, M. G., Ojha, A., & Indurkhya, B. (2021). The Double Framing Effect
of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2025.
Fairclough N., Mulderrig J., & Wodak R. (2011) Critical Discourse Analysis. In Van
Dijk, T. A. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Sage.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and
the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2018). War metaphors in public
discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(1), 1-18.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought, 109-128.
Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image
schemas and their transformations.
Gibbs Jr, R. W., Lima, P. L. C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in
embodied experience. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.
Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind &
Language, 21(3), 434-458.
Gibbs, R. W. (2009). Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor
theory?. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 14-36.
Girnth, H. (1996). Texts In Political Discourse-A Discourse-Oriented Description of
Stylistically Different Texts. Muttersprache, 106(1), 66-80.
Gong, S. P., & Ahrens, K. (2007). Processing conceptual metaphors in on-going
discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 313-330.
Gong, S. P., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2008). Chinese word sketch and mapping
principles: A corpus-based study of conceptual metaphors using the building source domain. International Journal of Computer Processing of Languages, 21(01), 3-17.
Halliwell, S. (1987). The Poetics of Aristotle: translation and commentary. University
of North Carolina Press.
Hampl, M. (2020). The use of the PATH and FORCE image schemas in Barack
Obama’s counterterrorism discourse against ISIL. Critical Discourse Studies, 1-16.
Hong, T., He, X., Tillman, R., Zhao, X., & Deng, Y. (2017). The vertical and horizontal spatial-temporal conceptual metaphor representation of Chinese temporal words. Psychology, 8(11), 1679.
Hood, S. J. (2020). The Kuomintang and the democratization of Taiwan. Routledge.
Ho, M. S. (2015). Occupy congress in Taiwan: Political opportunity, threat, and the
Sunflower Movement. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15(1), 69-97.
Jacobs, J. B. (2012). Democratizing Taiwan. Brill.
Jacobs, J. B. (2019). Myth and Reality in Taiwan’s Democratisation. Asian Studies
Review, 43(1), 164-177.
Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). Itri-04-08 the sketch
engine. Information Technology, 105, 116.
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P.,
& Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7-36.
Kövecses, Z. (1994). Tocqueville’s Passionate ‘Beast’: A Linguistic Analysis of the
Concept of American Democracy. Metaphor and Symbol, 9(2), 113–133.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2009). Metaphor, culture, and discourse: The pressure of coherence.
In Metaphor and discourse (pp. 11-24). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive linguistics, 28(2), 321-347.
Lai, H. L., & Chung, S. F. (2018). Color polysemy: Black and white in Taiwanese
languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 16(1), 95-130.
Lai, H. L. (2019). Colour terms in Chinese. In The Routledge Handbook of Chinese
Applied Linguistics (pp. 105-117). Routledge.
Lakoff G., & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-
schemas?.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and Thought (second edition) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind A cognitive scientist`s guide to your brain
and its politics. New York: Penguin.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the
gulf. Cognitive Semiotics, 4(2), 5-19.
Lakoff, G. (2014). The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and
Frame the Debate. Hartford, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, G. (2016). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Third Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, A. (1863). Address Delivered at the Dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg. November, 19, 1863.
Lu, L. W. L., & Ahrens, K. (2008). Ideological Influence on BUILDING Metaphors in Taiwanese Presidential Addresses. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 383–408.
Liu, N. (2011) Taiwanese Student Sit-in for Democratic Reform (Wild Lily
Movement) 1990. Retrieved June 27, 2022, from https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/taiwanese-student-sit-democratic-reform-wild-lily-movement-1990
Mandler, J. M., & Cánovas, C. P. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and
Cognition, 6(4), 510-532.
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol,
21(1), 23–38.
Musolff, A. (2014). Metaphor in the discourse-historical approach. In. Hart, C. & Cap, P. (Eds), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 45-66). London Bloomsbury Publishing
Musolff, A. (2015). Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(1), 41-56.
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Musolff, A. (2017). Truths, Lies and Figurative Scenarios: Metaphors at the Heart of
Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(5), 641–657.
Musolff, A. (2020). Metaphors for the Nation: Conceptualization of Its BODY and/or
PERSON. In Cultural Conceptualizations in Language and Communication (pp. 3-23). Springer, Cham.
Muyard, F. (2008). Taiwan Elections 2008: Ma Ying-jeou’s victory and the KMT’s
return to power. China Perspectives, 2008 (2008/1), 79-94.
Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological review, 86(3), 161.
Potts, A., & Semino, E. (2019). Cancer as a Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2),
81-95.
Ranjan, R. (2016). Taiwan’s Election 2016 and Cross-Strait Policy. ICWA View Point.
Reisigl, M. (2003). "Wie man eine Nation herbeiredet. Eine diskursanalytische
Untersuchung zur sprachlichen Konstruktion der österreichischen Nation und österreichischen Identität in politischen Fest- und Gedenkreden. Wien [PhD Dissertation].
Reisigl, M. (2008). Rhetoric of political speeches. In R. Wodak, & V. Koller. (Eds.),
Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, 4, 243-270
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In R.
Wodak & M. Meyer. (Eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 87–121).
London: Sage.
Reisigl and Wodak (2016). The discourse-historical approach (pp. 23-61). In Wodak,
R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies. Sage.
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2015). How viruses and
beasts affect our opinions (or not): The role of extendedness in metaphorical framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 245-263.
Roy, D. (2003). Taiwan: A political history. Cornell University Press.
Rubinstein, M. A. (2015). Taiwan: A New History. New York: Routledge.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse (p. 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A., & Rayson, P.
(2015). The online use of Violence and Journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMJ supportive & palliative care, 7(1), 60-66.
Sontag, S. (1978). Illness as metaphor. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shih, C. F. (2007). Ethnic Politics in Taiwan since Democratization (in Chinese).
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, 4(4), 1–26.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach.
In Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (Eds), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 63-105). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor—now new and
improved!. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9(1), 26-64.
Steen, G. J. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor
theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67-72.
Tipler, C. N., & Ruscher, J. B. (2019). Dehumanizing representations of women: the s
shaping of hostile sexist attitudes through animalistic metaphors. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), 109-118.
Thibodeau, P.H. and Boroditsky, L. (2011) Metaphors we think with: the role of
metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One 6, e167829. Elmore, K.
Thibodeau, P.H. and Boroditsky, L. (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly
influence reasoning. PLoS One 8, e52961
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2015). Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic
opinion landscape. PloS one, 10(7), e0133939.
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017). How linguistic metaphor
scaffolds reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(11), 852-863.
Thibodeau, P. (2017). The function of metaphor framing, deliberate or otherwise, in a
social world. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 270-290.
Tsai, I.W. (2021). Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy: A Force for Good in the
Changing International Order. Foreign Affairs, 100, 74-84.
Wachman, A. M. (1994). Taiwan: National identity and democratization. ME
Sharpe.
Wei, J. M. Y. (2001). Virtual missiles: Metaphors and allusions in Taiwanese political
campaigns. Lexington Books.
Wei, J. M. Y. (2019). (Un) doing nationalism through metaphorical scenario:
a case of modern China/Taiwan. In Colloquium: New Philologies (Vol. 4, pp. 191-210).
Wei, J. M. Y., & Duann, R. F. (2019). Who are we?: Contesting meanings in the
speeches of national leaders in Taiwan during the authoritarian period. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(5), 760-781.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research: An Introduction.
CA: Wadsworth Pub and Cengage learning.
Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research
on Language & Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 185-193.
Wodak, R. (2001). The Discourse-Historical Approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 63–94). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory
and methodology. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2, 1-33.
Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). European identities and the revival of nationalism in
the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Journal of language and politics, 14(1), 87-109.
Wong, J. (2001). Dynamic democratization in Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary
China, 10(27), 339-362.
Wu, S. (2021). A corpus-based study of the time orientation of qian “front” and hou
“back” in Chinese. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor
and thought, 247-261.
Zeng, W. H., Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K. (2021). Framing metaphor use over
time: ‘Free Economy’ metaphors in Hong Kong political discourse (1997–2017). Lingua, 252, 102955.		zh_TW