The Effect of Metaphors on portraying Immigration in Political speeches. A Biopolitical View on Rhetorics

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Framework

2.1 Biopolitics

2.2 Political Rhetoric

2.2.1 Introduction

2.2.2 Figures of Speech

2.2.3 Conceptual metaphor

2.3 State of the Art

2.4 Methodology

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 General findings

3.2 Specific Findings of metaphors in Trump’s Corpus

3.3 Specific Findings of metaphors in Biden’s Corpus

3.4 Discussion of Findings

3.4.1 Introduction

3.4.2 Disaster metaphors

3.4.3 War and Conflict metaphors

3.4.4 Container metaphors

3.4.5 Animal metaphors

3.4.6 Journey metaphors

4. Conclusion

5. Bibliography

6. Transcripts

7. Metaphors

Objectives and Research Themes

This paper investigates how political metaphors shape public perception of immigration, comparing the rhetorical strategies used by Donald Trump and Joe Biden during the 2020 U.S. election campaign. By applying Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the research seeks to uncover how these metaphors influence the framing of immigrants as either threats or contributors to the state-body within a biopolitical context.

• Comparison of metaphorical source domains between Republican and Democratic discourse.
• Application of the biopolitical "Us vs. Them" framework to explain immigration rhetoric.
• Identification of metaphors serving functions of persuasion, simplification, and emotional arousal.
• Analysis of how specific politicians justify their immigration policies through rhetorical devices.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. Introduction: Introduces the field of biopolitics and the central role of metaphors in shaping political discourse regarding immigration.

2. Framework: Establishes the theoretical foundation, covering biopolitical theory, political rhetoric, and the Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

3. Results and Discussion: Presents the quantitative findings of the metaphor analysis and qualitatively discusses specific source domains and their political functions.

4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that metaphors play a crucial, ideology-driven role in framing immigration policy differently across the two political parties.

Key Words

Biopolitics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, Immigration, Political Rhetoric, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Metaphor, Source Domain, State Racism, Us vs Them, Persuasion, Discourse, Public Opinion, Election Campaign.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of this paper?

The paper examines how Donald Trump and Joe Biden utilize metaphors in political speeches to shape the public's perception of immigration as a biopolitical issue.

What are the central thematic fields explored?

The core themes include biopolitical control, the "Us vs. Them" mentality, the framing of immigration as a threat or a journey, and the role of rhetoric in political persuasion.

What is the primary research goal?

The goal is to determine which conceptual metaphors are prevalent in the speeches of Trump and Biden, and to explain their function in justifying different immigration policies.

Which scientific methods are applied?

The research employs Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) for identification and categorization, alongside Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) for interpreting the usage and tone of the metaphors.

What does the main body cover?

It provides a detailed analysis of source domains like disaster, war, container, animal, and journey, contrasting how these domains are employed by the two politicians.

Which keywords define this study?

Key terms include Biopolitics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, Political Rhetoric, and Immigration.

How does Trump’s usage of disaster metaphors differ from Biden's?

Trump significantly favors disaster metaphors to frame immigration as an uncontrollable, dangerous event, whereas Biden uses these metaphors much less frequently, opting for different framing strategies.

What is the significance of the "Container" metaphor?

It reflects the biopolitical need for an "inside" (citizens) and "outside" (immigrants), serving to dehumanize outsiders and justify their exclusion from the state-body.