Abstract
Political campaigns are dynamic struggles between candidates to define the informational context for voters. Early studies (Kaid, 1981, 1994a, 1994b) suggested that political advertising has cognitive and behavioral effects on voters. It communicates the brand promise of a candidate blending functional and emotional benefits that voters gain from their relationships with a candidate. 
 
 This study, based on Lakoff’s Framing Model (LFM, 2004), proposes a pragmatic model for the analysis of a political election rhetoric. Within this pragmatic model, it is shown that in such a rhetoric the process of choosing variables of mental and psychological strategies is used. Such a process can be understood as the outcome of producers’ choice making, dynamic negotiation and linguistic adaptation. The analysis of a political discourse makes it possible to see how frames are powerful rhetorical entities that motivate audience to filter their perceptions of the world. It presents evidences to the claim that a candidate’s speech using ‘rhetoric of fear’ appeals to the audience. Contradicted reactions appear: some audience react feeling ‘fearful’ while others respond feeling ‘protected’ or ‘heard’ that a candidate is listening to their concerns and willing to fulfil them. It also shows how the institutionalized use of strategy language has implications: some of these emerge from the genre itself while others derive from situation; specific choices.
Highlights
In Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Lakoff (2004) explains ‘how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments
Contradicted reactions appear: some audience react feeling ‘fearful’ while others respond feeling ‘protected’ or ‘heard’ that a candidate is listening to their concerns and willing to fulfil them. It shows how the institutionalized use of strategy language has implications: some of these emerge from the genre itself while others derive from situation; specific choices
In The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st, Century American Politics with an 18th century Brain, Lakoff (2008) ‘spells out what cognitive science has discovered about reason, and reveals that human reason is far more interesting than we thought it was.’ (Lakoff, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Summary
In Moral Politics (2002, pp. 143−176), ‘It is a blend of cognitive science and political analysis. Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different central metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. In Why Trump Got the Republican Nomination: It’s the Metaphors Drawing Us In, Lakoff states that ‘the job of Trump’s supporters and other radical Republican extremists is to impose their view of strict father morality in all areas of life. They do not need to name policies, because the Republicans already of hundreds of policies ready to go. Trump uses them instinctively to turn people’s brains toward what he wants absolute authority, money, power, celebrity.’ (Lakoff, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
