There are few empirical studies conducted to test the validity of the proposed models. Cienki (2004, 2005a, 2005b) are the first contribution to the linguistic investigation of the models. He merged between the quantitative and qualitative approaches. Cienki (2004) conducted an analysis in order to empirically testing Lakoff’s models. His corpus was a televised debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore before the US before the presidential campaign in October 2000. Cienki searched for the central metaphors for the SF and NP morality which he extracted from Lakoff’s (2002). His concern was the actual representation of the two sets of conceptual metaphors that translate Lakoff’s proposition of conceptual structure which describes the American
…show more content…
These models are designed to present two contradictory moral stand points. They reflect the type of values that the democrats and the republicans hold and this explains why every conceptual metaphor in both lists enjoy morality as its target domain and resort to common notions as their source domains such as: STRENGHT, AUTHORITY, NURTURANCE, EMPATHY, WHOLENESS and the like. It seems so convenient to refer to such general notions during the process of locating moral values expressed in the discourse of the political actors and this is what Lakoff suggests to be the case. It is obvious now that what matters to Lakoff is the notion of values that is emphasized in Lakoff (2002). Moreover, in his later publication don’t think of an elephant. Know your values and frame the debate (2004) he recommends the democrats to rely on framing their political discourse according to moral values highlighted in the NP model. In Lakoff and the Rockridge (2006:8) he writes:
Politics is about values. Issues are secondary, not irrelevant or unimportant, but secondary. A position on issues should follow from one’s values, and the choice of issues and policies should symbolize those values.
Accordingly, it is only by analysing the ‘kind of values’ embraced by a politician, we can find out whether a politician cognitively belongs to the NP or the SF models of moral
These models are designed to present two contradictory moral stand points. They reflect the type of values that the democrats and the republicans hold and this explains why every conceptual metaphor in both lists enjoy morality as its target domain and resort to common notions as their source domains such as: STRENGHT, AUTHORITY, NURTURANCE, EMPATHY, WHOLENESS and the like. It seems so convenient to refer to such general notions during the process of locating moral values expressed in the discourse of the political actors and this is what Lakoff suggests to be the case. It is obvious now that what matters to Lakoff is the notion of values that is emphasized in Lakoff (2002). Moreover, in his later publication don’t think of an elephant. Know your values and frame the debate (2004) he recommends the democrats to rely on framing their political discourse according to moral values highlighted in the NP model. In Lakoff and the Rockridge (2006:8) he writes:
Politics is about values. Issues are secondary, not irrelevant or unimportant, but secondary. A position on issues should follow from one’s values, and the choice of issues and policies should symbolize those values.
Accordingly, it is only by analysing the ‘kind of values’ embraced by a politician, we can find out whether a politician cognitively belongs to the NP or the SF models of moral