THE ROLE OF METAPHORS IN FRAMING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract:
This article examines the role of metaphors in framing international relations and diplomatic negotiations, with emphasis on how metaphorical constructions influence political decision-making and intercultural communication. Metaphors are more than stylistic embellishments; they provide conceptual frameworks that structure how complex political realities are understood and communicated. Diplomatic discourse often relies on metaphors such as “diplomatic bridge-building,” “war of words,” or “negotiation table” to simplify abstract processes and to create persuasive narratives that resonate across cultures. By analyzing speeches from global leaders, official negotiation transcripts, and media reports, this study demonstrates how metaphors shape perceptions of conflict and cooperation, construct collective identities, and legitimize political actions. The findings highlight the significance of metaphors as powerful tools in international relations, functioning simultaneously as cognitive devices, rhetorical strategies, and instruments of ideological framing within political-diplomatic discourse.
Article Details
How to Cite:
References:
Carver, T., & Pikalo, J. (Eds.). (2008). Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World. London: Routledge. pp. 11–38, 201–224.
De Landtsheer, C. (2009). Collecting political meaning from the count of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(4). pp. 203–222.
Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–48, 133–160.
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–94, 175–198.
Lakoff, G. (2014). The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!. White River Junction: Chelsea Green. pp. 23–56, 97–112.
Mio, J. S. (1997). Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(2). pp. 113–133.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 45–72, 201–223.