Frazer Heritage: Using the 5 Categories Which Compose Political Ideology in Tandem with Close Linguistic Analysis

Winner, 2018 George Walford International Essay Prize.

Using the 5 Categories Which Compose Political Ideology in Tandem with Close Linguistic Analysis: Creating a Evidenced-Based Linguistic Framework For Exploring Political Stance

Systematic Ideology (SI) is a study of ideologies, as founded in the 1930s by Harold Walsby and George Walford. The goal of SI is the social scientific study of what inclines an individual to align themselves with an ideology. [I] SI appears to be a multifaceted field: with studies on how ideologies change over time, how they change when in group settings, and how political identity affects ideological stances. However, a constant thematic link within these sub-fields is the notion that ideologies are not fixed, that indeed they are flexible and can change both over time and depending on the broader social context. [ii] In this essay, I am primarily concerned with SI as an underlying conceptual system influenced by environment but manifested in political identity. In this essay, I centre my attention on how political identity and ideology are interlinked.

One criticism of SI is that there appears to be no rigorous method of identifying a specific ideology. Academics outside the ‘pure’ study of SI have argued that one way of examining ideology is to explore the linguistic patterns employed by people to gain a better understanding of their ideological values. [iii] Since the 1980s, many linguistics have employed figurative language analysis to explore the ideologies of individuals. However, these analyses tend not to explore the nuanced features of SI, although I would argue that it is possible to do so. In particular, I explore studies which have found underlying ideologies as presented through figurative within a political context.

In this essay I start by defining SI on a deeper level, and discuss some of the nuanced elements to SI. Following this, I review work stemming from the field of linguistics and turn to the field of cognitive linguistics. This then leads me to highlight areas which could be fruitful between SI and cognitive linguistics. Following this, I argue that combining metaphor analysis and five categories can identify an individual’s political ideology on a given topic.

I argue that it may be possible to use Walsby and Walford’s notion of categorisation of values to identify political ideology in conjunction with close linguistic analysis in order to identify a person’s ideological stance towards a particular field. In order to test this, I take an extract of language from Donald Trump and explore this synergised framework in detail.

SI: Exploring the Nuanced Aspects of Political Identity and Ideology
For the purposes of this essay, I will be using the definition of ideology which commonly used in scholarly work on SI, whereby an ideology comprises the: “basic ideas (or rather, the assumptions) underlying any system of ideas” which can be extended across the “whole field of propositions – political, economic, religious, philosophical, scientific or otherwise.” [iv] However, this definition does not necessarily capture the nuanced components which comprise ideology, nor does it explain where ideologies stem from.

The differentiation between intellect and intelligence offered by Walsby begins to explain ideology in a more nuanced way. He argues that intellect is influenced by environmental circumstances and intelligence is mostly “inborn”. [v] At the centre of his 1947 book, Walsby explores ideology within a political context and makes the differentiation between right-wing (conservatism and economic individualism) and left-wing (liberalism and economic collectivism) politics, arguing that left-wing politics tends to be associated more with intellectualism but also more accepting of marginalised people. [vi] Walsby’s goal was to understand the masses and how they function, and what lead them to different levels of intellectualism, and ultimately how their political outlook affected their ideological stances. [vii] This very quickly lead to the idea that ideology is not a single belief, but is a complex mixture of internalised attitudes which manifests itself in cognitive systems. He notes:

“ideology may now be defined as the complete system of cognitive assumptions and affective identifications which manifest themselves in, or underlie, the thought, speech aims, interests, ideals ethical standards, actions – in short, in the behaviour – of an individual human being.” [viii]

Therefore, a more accurate and nuanced definition of SI ought to be that it is one’s conception of an idealistic society, how the individual proposes society goes about trying to achieve this idealistic society, and how this idealistic conception can be changed to influence social-political behaviours.

Within the realms of political behaviours, both Walsby and Walford argue that the world’s citizens can be divided into six political groups: non-politicals, conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchistsix. Though, I take some issue with this: I would argue that political identity is more on a spectrum and more fluid than as rigid as these six categories. I would argue that the world’s citizens are better divided using a model such as demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 takes in to account that most of the labels given to the political groups by Walsby and Walford are left leaning, though I have also added centralists and fascists to the diagram. Like Anarchists, I would argue that fascists represent one extreme end of the political spectrum. The fact that fascists were not included in the six categories is interesting given that Walford himself discusses Fascists in a way which appears to separate them from other right-wing parties:

“The crisis of capitalism, so long awaited, brought not socialism but fascism, bursting up from forgotten depths. The Soviet promise was trampled into bloody dust, and the Great War turned out to have been merely the first act, with worse to come.” [x]

There is room for an argument that fascists may fall under a broader conservative political affiliation, but this does not accurately give a deeper insight in to the multifaceted nature of conservatism and the ideologies within conservatism.

I have also placed non-politicals in a separate spectrum: although non-political may actively avoid engaging with political debate and argument, their political ideologies could still fall within the left-wing-right-wing spectrum. If, as Walsby argues, that ideology is formed from environmental circumstances, it bears to reason that all humans within any environment would have some form of ideological value. Therefore, the non-politicals category acts as an umbrella category for those who do not display their ideologies or do not divulge them.

Taking this notion that the ‘six’ political groups are better represented on a spectrum as opposed to in rigid categories, questions are raised about the five features of differentiation amongst these categories. Walford and Walby argue that the categories can be defined by: size of popular support, degree of change desired, preference for freedom or government control in economic affairs, preference for freedom or government control in political affairs and value placed upon theory as a guide to action. [xi] To this, I would argue that these are factors which influence where on the spectrum a person falls and that this spectrum can be applied across fields. For example, an individual may have religious conservatism but not racial conservativism. I would also argue that for some individuals, some of these 5 categorisation methods could have more affect than others.

Walsby would argue that nonpoliticals represent the high extreme on popular support, the low extreme on degree of change desired, the high extreme on freedom in economic affairs, the low extreme for freedom in political affairs, and the low extreme on the value placed on theory, and that the other categories he move increasingly to the opposite direction in the order outlined above. However, I would counter-argue that some liberal individuals may be a mixture of these in different proportions. For example, some socialists may represent the low extreme on popular support, the high extreme on degree of change desired, the low extreme on freedom in economic affairs, but may represent a low extreme for freedom in political affairs, and low amount of extreme on the value placed on theory.

These categories become further problematised when examining the dichotic nature of ‘high’ and ‘low’. Like the groups of individuals, I would that the categorisation methods are also on a spectrum, and that individuals can have a mixture of identities on these spectrums. Indeed, this notion resonates with post-structuralist research on to different discourses and the creation of socio-economic power-based hierarchies. [xii]

Nevertheless, it is important to contextualise Walsby and Walford’s work: the political landscape of between 1930 and 1950 was very different to the political landscape of today. As Walsby notes, society changes over time, which affects the ideologies of those on both the right-wing side of the spectrum and the left-wing side. Indeed, there has been a recent raise in the so-called ‘alt right’ and ‘antifa’ movements [xiii], both of which are considered ‘extremist’ movements by today’s standard. To simply call movements like ‘alt right’, which are largely composed of white-nationalists, ‘conservative’ is damaging not only to some conservative ideologies but also to left-wing ideologies (as it positions some left-wing ideologies as closer to white-nationalism in terms of placement on a spectrum). In other words, conservatives are not a homogenous mass and while they may share some ideological views with the so-called ‘alt right’, there are most likely many ideologies which they do not share. For example, while some conservatives may be proponents of austerity, this does not mean that they wish all non-white people would leave the country.

However, one criticism of the theories proposed by scholars such as Walsby and Walford is that there appears to be a lack of empirical methods and rigorous procedure for exploring how ideologies are conveyed. Walsby and Walford’s work is highly theoretical and the scientific sources referenced are, by modern standards, problematic. [xiv] While both Walsby and Walford provide models for conceptualising how ideologies are generated, sustained, and maintained, they do not provide a method for identifying ideology. To some degree, it could be argued that the methods of categorisation could be turned in to a model for analysing ideology, but what is to be analysed? What data is best analysed with regard to identifying a politically biased ideology, and how does one go about explaining what particular ideology is being conveyed at a given time? It is for this reason I argue that scholars should turn to cognitive linguistics.

A large amount of research has been done in to ideologies which underpin political groups: the work of linguist George Lakoff suggests that there is an underlying conceptual system which those on the left and those on the right sides of the spectrum employ in their politics, the ‘nurturing mother’ and the ‘strict father’ models. [xv] This kind of research also resonates with the ideologies typically held by those in the military. For example, Van Doorn like Walford, argues that the ethics within the military appear to be like the ethics within conservatism. [xvi] In other words, the work of Lakoff suggests that military ideologies follow the conservative ‘strict father’ model. Lakoff argues that one way to explore political ideologies is to explore figurative language, such as the metaphors, similes, and metonymies people use when talking about politics. [xvii][xviii]

Though, these models provide some resistance to Walford’s idea that there may be some resistance to the strict father figure:

“Following the classical pattern of rebellion against the father-figure some of the more enterprising people with serious interest in psycho-analysis are questioning the bases of Freud’s work”. [xix]

But is there true resistance to a father figure, a ‘strict father’ model, or indeed by extension the ideology that one should follow a strict father’s advice? Some linguistic scholars have argued that there is a raise in the use of the conceptual strict father model [xx], and that many are being encouraged to think that he world is a dangerous place. It’s a difficult place. And kids are born bad and must be made good”. [xxi] Given the recent rise in nationalist discourse, it is possible to suggest that many people are following this strict father ideology, and that there is currently little rebellion against the state-imposed father figure / ideology which a strict father might hold.

Cognitive Linguistics and Ideology: How Figurative Language Can Convey Ideology

Before I explore cognitive linguistics, I want to emphasise the importance of language analysis and what it can bring to SI. The first principal is that language is a form of communication, and when I refer to language, I refer also to methods of communication. [xxii] In other words, everything relates to back to language and communication. Physical actions are a type of language as they serve a communicative purpose. Pictures and visual representations too are a form of language due to similar reasons. Therefore, the second principal stemming from the first principal is that any evidence of an ideology is most likely going to rely on the analysis of some form of language or communicative device. [xxiii] The third principal is that language and communication are imbued with discourse: language is the root of discourse and ideology can be positioned within both language and broader discourses. [xxiv]

Within this subsection, I focus particularly on figurative language, which is non-literal language, such as metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and metonymy. [xxv] Although, I give particular attention to metaphor as within the field of linguistics, it is arguably the most researched with regard to ideology. [xxvi]

In the past, philosophical scholars, such as Burke, [xxvii] have viewed figurative language, such as metaphor, as a linguistic embellishment which is confined to the fields of literature and poetry. He defines metaphor as: “a device for seeing something in terms of something else”. However, more recently it has been argued that metaphor reflects deeper cognitive systems which are influenced by social, and cultural experiences. [xxviii] Within this second school of thought, metaphor is viewed as: “the cognitive process of understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” [xxix]

Metaphor researchers have noted the link between cognitive processes, metaphorical thinking, and metaphor use. [xxx] Within the cognitive linguistics field, it is widely believed that individuals internalise messages from their environments and this affects their cognitive processes. [xxxi] Indeed, this position alone reflects the concept in SI that intellect is influenced by environmental circumstances, as argued by Walsby. [xxxii] In other words, literature in both fields appear to point towards conceptual systems, and by extension ideologies, as affected by environmental factors. Where they appear to differ is that Lakoff argues that figurative language, such as metaphor, is the manifestation of these.

Indeed, this link between cognitive processes, ideology and metaphor is best explained by Charteris-Black, who suggests that metaphors: “constitute verbal evidence for an underlying system of ideas – or ideology – whose assumptions may be ignored if we are unaware of them.” [xxxiii] Hence, metaphors provide a platform to expose conventionalised social hierarchies and ideologies within the language, or the discourse, around politics. Unlike traditional SI literature, cognitive linguists propose examining a text, or indeed speech, for figurative language, such as metaphors, in order to explore the underlying cognitive processes of that metaphor and extract ideological associations. Linguistic investigations which have adopted this approach have allowed analysts to understand the underlying ideologies of politicians, how these ideologies are portrayed, and how these ideologies relate to a broader contemporary society. I highlight this concept in Figure 2.

This notion that ideology is expressed through metaphor use can be demonstrated when people metaphorically construct ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups. When an ‘in’ group is conceptualised, the group is viewed as a homogenous society which is central to the person constructing the group’s identity. [xxxiv] On the other hand, when an ‘out’ group is conceptualised, it is often seen as a threat. For example:

These foreigners are fast-tracked to receive government-subsidized housing while many have waited 15 years to claim the same right. They take our jobs, our land, and our benefits” (COCA data) [xxxv]

In this example, immigrants are seen as an ‘out’ group, which poses a risk to members of the ‘in’ group’s job security. Thus, the speaker can convey ideologies that immigrants are thieves and immigrants are a risk to the state. The first ideology is conveyed through the metaphorical phrase ‘they take our jobs’. In this example people are encouraged to conceptualise immigrants as stealing a physical object, and while in a literal sense, it is impossible to steal the abstract concepts of a job, land, or benefits, the language suggests a broader problem with the discourse surrounding immigrants: that immigrants are seen in a negative way by right-wing politicians.

Politically charged topics appear to encourage these ‘in’ and ‘out’ group conceptualisations. In particular, Lynne Cameron has noted how different people of different political affiliations have used these conceptualisations to highlight differences between themselves. [xxxvi] In Cameron’s study, a former Irish Republican Army member and the daughter of a man who he killed used different ‘in’ and ‘out’ group conceptualisations to position themselves as different to each other. Given the nature of SI as usually explored within a political context, and as a method of examining ideologies which are entangled in political stances, this kind of research provides a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data on the presentation of ideologies, something which I would argue SI could benefit from.

SI and Cognitive Linguistics: Gaps and Overlaps

Clearly, the notion presented by SI that ideology operates on a cognitive level aligns quite well with cognitive linguistics. Where SI views ideology as an underlying conceptual system of ideas, cognitive linguistics argues that these ideologies become intertwined with the linguistic manifestations of underlying conceptual systems, and as such we as humans present our ideologies through metaphor use.

As mentioned earlier, one criticism of the research in to SI is that there is often not a ‘robust’ method of identifying how ideologies are present. The field of cognitive linguistics offers such a method: explore figurative language in use. Though in a different branch of linguistics, Gupta has been able to show ideologies of different classes across time towards the feminist movement. In their work, Gupta takes a diachronic approach to analysing the British newspaper ‘the Times’ and takes in to account the different political affiliations and readership groups. [xxxvii] Indeed, Gupta’s research is testament to how ideologies can change over time: in the past ‘the Times’ was very anti-feminist movement, but by modern standards appears to support it. Indeed, the readership of the newspaper has changed over time too: it used to have a conservative editorial team and is now more left-leaning. The metaphoric construction of ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups across time could be seen as evidence for Walford’s notions that ideological structure as well as society change over time. [xxxviii]

However, linguistics very rarely takes the approach of SI, and when ideology is examined in linguistic fields, it usually only relates to political affiliation in a more general sense. Though, I would contest that figurative language can be used to explore not only the language of areas within the political spectrum highlighted in Figure 1, but also the categories which affect where an individual lies on that spectrum. I would argue that metaphor can be used to inference ideological stances.

Taking the idea of what affects the political identity and ideology of an individual, I would argue that the categories which affect individual ideologies could provide a solid framework in which to analyse figurative language. That is to say that analysing metaphors used with regard to whether or not they metaphorically position a speaker in favour of: size of popular support, degree of change desired, preference for freedom or government control in economic affairs, preference for freedom or government control in political affairs and value placed upon theory as a guide to action, could provide a more rigid framework with linguistic evidence for each case.

Combing SI and Cognitive Linguistics: An Explorative Case Study
In order to test the hypothesis mentioned above, I decided to take a sample of language from Donald Trump in the second 2016 presidential debate against Hillary Clinton. The extract I will use to demonstrate the compatibility between SI and cognitive linguistics is as follows:

“But we’re bringing the tax rate down from 35 percent to 15 percent. We’re cutting taxes for the middle class. And I will tell you, we are cutting them big league for the middle class. And I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks. You can look at me. She’s raising your taxes really high. And what that’s going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising your taxes and I’m lowering your taxes. That in itself is a big difference. We are going to be thriving again. We have no growth in this country. There’s no growth. If China has a GDP of 7 percent, it’s like a national catastrophe. We’re down at 1 percent. And that’s, like, no growth. And we’re going lower, in my opinion. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high, just about the highest in the world. And I’m bringing them down to one of the lower in the world.”

Taking this extract, I would argue that the five methods of categorisation need to be explored on individual levels, and their (approximate) location on a spectrum needs to be identified. As such, the following five points take this extract and apply the methods of categorisation using the language and evidence for each. It is important to consider the topic being discussed here too. As this is a financial matter, this relates primarily to Trump’s ideology on finance and the economy.

Size of popular support: In this example, Trump appears to have a fair amount of support but is concerned with a lack of support from the middle class, as evidenced by: “We’re cutting taxes for the middle class”. Potentially, this positions towards the prototypical right-wing side of categorisation, as he already has a lot of support, as suggested by his concern for a single class or mass of people. In his use of figurative language at this point, Trump refers to a collective ‘we’. This indeterminate number could be used in an effort to suggest that a large amount of the population is working to further help Trump’s targeted social-class.

Degree of change desired: According to Walsby and Walford, conservatives should have a low desire for a degree of change. This is not necessarily the case in this extract: Trump uses metaphors which position the current economic climate as negative and suggests that his changes will make this in to something drastically more positive. This can be evidenced by the difference in the metaphors: “we are cutting them big league” and “She’s raising your taxes really high”. Here, metaphors about vertical height are used in a dichotomous way. Trump is metaphorically positioning his ideology in opposition to the ideologies of the left-wing administration. This change from one extreme to another could suggest that, in fact, Trump does desire a large degree of change. Walsby and Walford’s standards, Trump is more left-leaning on this front. This data, which appears to go strengthen the earlier criticism of Walsby and Walford’s categories: that an induvial can have elements of both right-wing and left-wing ideologies.

Preference for freedom or government control in economic affairs: In this category, Trump does appear to meet Walsby and Walford’s idea that those with right-wing affiliations carry the ideology that preference for government control in economic affairs, as evidenced by his metonymic reference to ‘I’ (which in this case stands for his administration), working to control economic affairs: “And I’m bringing them down to one of the lower in the world”. Unlike the previous two categories, this category appears to be much closer to the right-wing side of the spectrum and carry more right-wing ideologies. To some degree, Trump metaphorically positions Clinton’s control of the economic affairs as unruly by using vague language such as ‘really high’. By not indicating any numbers and by being vague, the audience is left to judge Clinton in a way which is more likely to be negative.

Preference for freedom or government control in political affairs: Within the extract, and with regard to the field of finance, examining this aspect is relatively difficult and more complex. To some degree, the economic success of other countries could be considered a political affair. Given the nature of America’s relationship with China and the ideological stances towards China taken by the left, it is possible to suggest that Trump aligns himself once again closer to the right-wing ideals by referencing China. Within left-wing politics, many are wary of the working rights of Chinese citizens and Chinese labour laws. [xxxix] Therefore, by positioning China as a successful business model Trump also distances himself from the left-wing ideals of caring for the poor and the lower-class workers.

Value placed upon theory as a guide to action: Once again, Trump appears to follow Walford’s idea that conservatives place a low value on theory. This can be evidenced in: “We have no growth in this country. There’s no growth. If China has a GDP of 7 percent, it’s like a national catastrophe”. In this example, Trump does not cite theories relating to how China is able to receive a GDP of 7, the differences between America and China, nor financial theory as to why there is a ‘problem’ with the American economy. Although, by citing the GDP as ‘like a national catastrophe”, Trump appears to be able to re-package complex ideas like the GDP in to a way which is easier for those who do not have a solid grasp on the theory. To some degree, this could be Trump attempting to explain the theory to those who may not necessarily be interested in it, and thus appeal to people with similar ideologies to himself.

Taken together, using these categories as a framework to analyse figurative language within appears to reveal a person’s political identity and ideology. With regard to where Trump’s language positions himself within the categories, it is possible to suggest that most of the results point towards a right-wing political affiliation, and by extension right-wing ideology. However, there are a few cases where Trump is either not fully right-wing or is more left-leaning. This could suggest that his political identity and the ideologies he expresses lay between conservativism and fascism. It is not quite extreme right-wing, but it is certainly within the right-wing side of the spectrum.

In this essay, I have argued the need for a more nuanced approach to political identity and the ideologies underlying these identities. In line with post-structuralist theorists, I have argued that political identity and ideologies are best viewed on a spectrum. Given that there are 5 categorisation measures for political identity and ideology, I argued that these need to be viewed on a spectrum too.

I reviewed literature on cognitive linguistics: the notion that metaphors and figurative language reflects underlying conceptual systems and that these underlying conceptual systems are interwoven with ideology.

I argued that SI investigations could benefit from a rigorous method of identifying ideologies and that evidence was needed for this. To this extent, I suggested combining the evidence-based nature of cognitive linguistics and the framework of measures which affects political ideology. This was then tested using a sample of Donald Trump’s language, which was able to conclude that his ideology lies between conservativism and fascism.

While this essay provides a platform for other researchers, many more texts would need to be analysed in order to confirm the effectiveness of this framework and synergy.

[i] Walsby, H. (1947). The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[ii] Walsby, H. (1947). The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[iii] Richardson, J.E. and Wodak, R. (2009). Recontextualising fascist ideologies of the past: Right-wing discourses on employment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom. Critical Discourse Studies, 6(4), pp.251-267.

[iv] Walsby,H. (1947) “Definition of Ideology,” Part II Chapter 2 of The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[v] Walsby, H. (1947). The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[vi] Walsby, H. (1947). “The Left Wing and Intellectualism” Part I Chapter 3 of The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[vii] Walsby, H. (1947). “Mass Groups and Intellectual Groups,” Part I Chapter 4 of The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[viii] Walsby, H. (1947). The Domain of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[ix] Walford, G. (1990). Beyond Politics an Outline of Systematic Ideology. London: Calabria Press

[x] Walford, G. (1994). The Future of Fundamentalism. Ideological Commentary 64.

[xi] Walford, G. (1990). Beyond Politics an Outline of Systematic Ideology. London: Calabria Press

[xii] Matthews, E. Twentieth-Century French Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.

[xiii] Stack, L. (, 2017). Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language. The New York Times. Available Online: Last Accessed: February 10, 2018.

[xiv] Walsby, H. (1947). “Identifications,” Part II Chapter 4 of The Domain Of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[xv] Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[xvi] Van Doorn, J. (1971). Ideology And The Military. In M. Janowitz and J. Van Doorn (eds.) On Military Ideology. Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers Rotterdam.

[xvii] Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf. Peace Research. 23 (2), 25-32.

[xviii] Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. London: Routledge.

[xix] Walford, G. (1984) Oedipus, Come Home, Ideological Commentary 12

[xx] Ahrens, K. (2011). Examining conceptual metaphor models through lexical frequency patterns: A case study of US presidential speeches. Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending, 48 (1).

[xxi] Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[xxii] Han, C. (2015). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: Sage

[xxiii] Van Dijk, T.A. (2002). Political discourse and ideology. Analysis of Political Discourse, pp.15-34.

[xxiv] Van Dijk, T.A. (1999). Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis.

[xxv] Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thoughts and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[xxvi] Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[xxvii] Burke, K. (1945). A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.

[xxviii] Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[xxix] Ibid. p. 5

[xxx] Gibbs, R., Nayak, N. P., and Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593.

[xxxi] Gibbs, R. (2014). Embodied Metaphor. In: Littlemore, J. and Taylor, J. (eds) The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury. 167-184.

[xxxii] Walsby, H. (1947) “Mass Groups and Intellectual Groups,” Part I Chapter 4 of The Domain Of Ideologies. London: McClelland.

[xxxiii] Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 28

[xxxiv] Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

[xxxv] COCA stands for the Corpus OF Contemporary American English, a database of 560 million words of authentic examples of American English.

[xxxvi] Cameron, L. (2007). Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse & Society, 18 (2). 197-222.

[xxxvii] Gupta, K. (2016). Representation of the British suffrage movement. London: Bloomsbury Publishing UK.

[xxxviii] Walford, G. (1989). Systematic IdeologyIdeological Commentary 37, September 1989.