RUSSIA AS A TARGET DOMAIN IN AMERICAN, BRITISH AND CANADIAN POLITICAL DISCOURSES
Keywords:
corpus linguistics, NOW corpus, methods of corpus analysis, cognitive-discursive approach, metaphor, political discourse, image of RussiaAbstract
This article presents a fragment of the study of political metaphors involved in shaping the image ofRussia in English mass media. Using corpus technologies, an array of material was analyzed in an
original way from the NOW English-language corpus (electronic versions of articles from American,
British and Canadian newspapers and magazines for June 12, 2016) – dominant metaphorical models,
their most frequent frames, the models’ discursive characteristics, and pragmatic potential were
revealed. The significance of the work is the use of corpus linguistics methods to study political
metaphors, which greatly enriches the set of methods for studying political metaphors, increasing the
representativeness and objectivity of the results obtained.
References
Budaev E.V., Chudinov A.P. Metaphor in political
communication Moscow: Flint: Science, 2008.
Chudinov A.P. Metaphorical mosaic in modern
political communication. Ekaterinburg: Publishing
house Ural. State. Ped. Univ., 2003.
Deignan A. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics.
Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2005.
Graber D. Political Languages. In Handbook
of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, London:
Sage Publications, 1981, pp. 195–224.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we Live
by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003 .
Meyer Ch.F. English Corpus Linguistics: An
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Musolff A. Metaphor and Political Discourse.
Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Solopova O.A. Lingvopolitical prognostics:
a comparative study of models of the future of Russia
in the political discourses of Russia, the United States
and Britain of the XIXth (1855–1881) and XXIst centuries
(2000–2014). Ekaterinburg, 2016.
Zinken J. Discourse metaphors: The link between
figurative language and habitual analogies.
Cognitive Linguistics, 2007, 18 (3), pp. 445–466.




