Abstract
Metaphor theorists often state that metaphors are constitutive of thought and action. This article asks how language constructions are constitutive of policy, using the example of immigration policies in the United States. First, the claims of some metaphor analysts are scrutinised. Then a different approach is proposed, one that focuses on formulaic, oft-repeated schemas, or conventional discourses. Conventional discourses are not the same as Foucauldian discursive frameworks. Instead, they are stock rhetorical-interpretive frameworks. For policymakers they serve as mental shortcuts and political identity signals. Political speeches are constructed from multiple conventional discourses; 18 conventional discourses about immigration were drawn upon in just one Congressional debate. Their variety and numbers indicate the possibilities for differing policy emphases. Such constructions, including the formulaic metaphors that are typical of a particular conventional discourse, are constitutive in only a limited sense; they are suggestive without being determinative. Skilful politicians can creatively combine conventional discourses with rhetorical strategies of concession, springboarding, and co-optation to align with multiple constituencies, including ones on opposing sides of an issue. These points are illustrated with the example of U.S. Congressional debate about HR 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Chilton and Lakoff also recognise the strategic uses of verbal metaphors (e.g., Chilton and Ilyin 1993; Lakoff 2004).
I would not say that language use is only strategic. That characterisation is apt when applied to political speeches; it overstates the extent of speakers’ deliberation in other contexts (Strauss 2012, especially Chapter 3).
See also Salter (2003).
Tichenor (2002) gives a more nuanced analysis leading to the same conclusion.
See also Huntington's statement in American Enterprise: ‘The invasion of over 1 million Mexican civilians is a comparable threat [as 1 million Mexican soldiers] to American societal security, and Americans should react against it with comparable vigor’ (quoted in Chavez 2008: 22). Similarly, Buzan (1993) describes ‘the steady northward drive of Hispanics into the United States’ as a real security threat to other U.S. ethnic groups, comparable to white settlers’ obliteration of American Indians (Buzan 1993: 45).
For examples of other careful textual studies of immigration commentary, see Chavez (2001), Chock (1991, 1995), Ono and Sloop (2002), and Tardy (2009).
Elsewhere in his lengthy book he makes less sweeping and more reasonable claims about the effects of metaphor.
All quotes below from Congresspersons come from the comments recorded in the published Congressional Record version of the discussion about HR 4337 on the floor of the House of Representatives on 15 December, 2005. Each Congressperson's name is followed by an indication of whether they are a Republican (R-) or Democrat (D-) and the state they represent in Congress.
See Quinn (1997) for other trenchant criticisms of Lakoff and Johnson's claims about metaphor analysis.
For related approaches, see Roe's (1994) narrative policy analysis, applied by Newton (2008) to immigration, Gamson and Modigliani (1989) on media discourses, and Jackson (2004) on ‘rhetorical commonplaces’.
For the considerations that went into differentiating discourses and choosing names for them, see Strauss (2012).
For more background and provisions of HR 4437 see http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/summary-of-the-sensenbrenner-immigration-bill.aspx (accessed 19 October, 2009). See also Gales (2009) for an analysis of the treatment of diversity in HR 4437.
The political impact of HR 4437 was greater than that of another piece of national immigration legislation passed earlier that year, the REAL ID Act of 2005. There have been no national immigration laws enacted since then, as of this writing.
Some national surveys in 2005 showed that majorities wanted tighter border security to keep out immigrants. For example, 78 per cent favoured ‘tightening America's border with Mexico by increasing the number of border security agents’ (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, December 2005). Similarly, 79 per cent thought that ‘the United States is … not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country’ (ABC News/Washington Post Poll, December 2005). But other surveys in 2005 show majorities favouring legalisation of undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. For example, 61 per cent agreed that ‘illegal immigrants who are living and working in the United States now should be offered a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status’ (ABC News/Washington Post Poll, December 2005). Forty-five per cent of those surveyed believe immigrants strengthen our country vs 43 per cent who believe immigrants burden our country (Pew News Interest Index Poll, December 2005). All polls were conducted with representative national adult samples. All retrieved from the iPOLL Databank, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut, http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html (accessed 4 February, 2011). See Strauss (2012) for discussion of mixed public opinion in the United States about immigration due to the variety of conventional discourses to which the public is exposed.
The same may be true in other countries.
On intertextuality see Fairclough (1992), who draws on Kristeva (1986) and Bakhtin (1986).
Some members edit their remarks for publication in the Congressional Record. Whether the published remarks were those actually delivered on the floor or edited later does not matter for this analysis because both are intended for a public audience. The bill was downloaded from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109yLj9vI: (9 November, 2009).
See Billig (1991: 72) on the rhetorical uses of clashing common sense.
van Dijk notes that it is also a standard move for European Parliamentary comments about ethnic Others to be prefaced with references to the country's humanitarian policies and ‘ “long tradition” of hospitality’ (van Dijk 1997: 44).
See also Chock (1991, 1995) on the opportunity myth as individualistic, denying social hierarchies.
Most representatives stated ‘I rise today in support of/in opposition to …’ at the beginning of their remarks. For the few who did not, I obtained their vote at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-661 (accessed 11 January, 2009). Although the final vote was 239 Aye to 182 No, speakers in favour more or less evenly balanced those opposed, because of House rules for floor debate that allocate control over turns to a member from each party.
To say that they paid it ‘lip service’ does not necessarily mean they were insincere.
See van Dijk (1987: 85) on ‘pseudoaltruistic’ arguments.
See Strauss (2012) for a description of conventional discourses about government social programmes, methods of conventional-discourse analysis, and a discussion of its cross-cultural applicability.
Newton (2008: 3). See also Fowler (1991: 178) on the usefulness of verbal formulas in newspaper articles because they ‘offer … conceptual simplicity and memorability’.
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1981) ‘Discourse in the Novel’, in Michael Holquist, ed., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 259–422, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, C. Emerson and M. Holquist, eds., translated by V.W. McGee, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Becker, A.L. (1984) ‘Toward a Post-Structuralist View of Language Learning: A Short Essay’, Language Learning 33 (s5): 217–220.
Billig, Michael (1991) Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology, London: Sage Publications.
Billig, Michael (1995) Banal Nationalism, London: Sage.
Buzan, Barry (1993) ‘Societal Security, State Security and Internationalisation’, in Ole Wæver, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup and Pierre Lemaitre, eds, Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, 41–58, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Ceyhan, Ayse and Anastassia Tsoukala (2002) ‘The Securitization of Migration in Western Societies: Ambivalent Discourses and Policies’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27 (Special Issue): 21–39.
Chavez, Leo R. (2001) Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chavez, Leo R. (2008) The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chilton, Paul and Mikhail Ilyin (1993) ‘Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the ‘Common European House’, Discourse and Society 4 (1): 7–31.
Chilton, Paul and George Lakoff (1995) ‘Foreign Policy by Metaphor’, in Christina Schäffner and Anita Wenden, eds, Language and Peace, 37–59, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.
Chock, Phyllis Pease (1991) ‘“Illegal Aliens” and “Opportunity”: Myth-Making in Congressional Testimony’, American Ethnologist 18 (2): 279–94.
Chock, Phyllis Pease (1995) ‘Ambiguity in Policy Discourse: Congressional Talk about Immigration’, Policy Sciences 28 (2): 165–84.
Clark, Andy (1998) ‘Magic Words: How Language Augments Human Computation’, in Peter Carruthers and Jill Boucher, eds, Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, 162–83, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1996) ‘Immigration and National Identity: Constructing the Nation’, Review of International Studies 22 (3): 235–55.
Edelman, Murray (1964) The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Edelman, Murray (1985) ‘Political Language and Political Reality’, Political Science 18 (1): 10–19.
Ellis, Nick C. (2003) ‘Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure’, in Catherine J. Doughty and Michael H. Long, eds, The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 63–103, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ellis, Mark and Richard Wright (1998) ‘The Balkanization Metaphor in the Analysis of U.S. Immigration’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (4): 686–98.
Fairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fischer, Frank (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, Michel (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, translated by A.M.S. Smith, New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, translated by A. Sheridan, New York: Random House.
Fowler, Roger (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London: Routledge.
Freeman, Gary P. (1995) ‘Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States’, International Migration Review 29 (4): 881–902.
Gales, Tammy (2009) ‘“Diversity” as Enacted in US Immigration Politics and Law: A Corpus-Based Approach’, Discourse and Society 20 (2): 223–40.
Gamson, William A. and Andre Modigliani (1989) ‘Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach’, American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 1–37.
Gimpel, James G. and James R. Edwards (1999) The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn (1987) Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. (2004) ‘The Hispanic Challenge’, Foreign Policy 141 (March–April): 30–45.
Huysmans, Jef (2000) ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (5): 751–77.
Ibrahim, Maggie (2005) ‘The Securitization of Migration: A Racial Discourse’, International Migration 43 (5): 163–87.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2004) ‘Whose Identity? Rhetorical Commonplaces in “American” Wartime Foreign Policy’, in Patricia M. Goff and Kevin C. Dunn, eds, Identity and Global Politics: Empirical and Theoretical Elaborations, 169–89, New York: Palgrave.
King, Desmond (2000) Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kristeva, Julia (1986) ‘Word, Dialogue and Novel’, in Toril Moi, ed., The Kristeva Reader, 34–61, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lakoff, George (2002) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2nd edn., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George (2004) Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mehan, Hugh (1997) ‘The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation’, Discourse and Society 8 (2): 249–70.
Newton, Lina (2008) Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform, New York: New York University Press.
Ono, Kent A. and John M. Sloop (2002) Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Perelman, Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut (2006) Immigrant America: A Portrait, 3rd edn., Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Quinn, Naomi (1997) ‘Research on Shared Task Solutions’, in Claudia Strauss and Naomi Quinn, eds, A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning, 137–88, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roe, Emery (1994) Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Salter, Mark (2003) The Passport in International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Santa Ana, Otto (2002) Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Shapiro, Michael J. (1997) ‘Winning the West, Unwelcoming the Immigrant: Alternative Stories of “America”’, in Sanford F. Schram and Philip T Neisser, eds, Tales of the State: Narrative in Contemporary U.S. Politics and Public Policy, 17–26, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Smith, Rogers M. (1993) ‘Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America’, American Political Science Review 87 (3): 549–66.
Strauss, Claudia (2004) ‘Cultural Standing in Expression of Opinion’, Language in Society 33 (2): 161–94.
Strauss, Claudia (2012) Making Sense of Public Opinion: American Discourses about Immigration and Social Programs, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, Christine M. (2009) ‘Press 1 for English’: Textual and Ideological Networks in a Newspaper Debate on US Language Policy’, Discourse and Society 20 (2): 265–86.
Tichenor, Daniel J. (2002) Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tomasello, Michael (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1987) Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1993) ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis’, Discourse and Society 4 (2): 249–83.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1997) ‘Political Discourse and Racism: Describing Others in Western Parliaments’, in Stephen Harold Riggins, ed., The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, 31–64, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch (1993) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, New York: Academic Press.
Wæver, Ole, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup and Pierre Lemaitre (1993) Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Wray, Alison (2008) Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
This article was greatly improved by comments from Dvora Yanow, Alan Cienki, and the editors and anonymous referees for the Journal of International Relations and Development.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strauss, C. How are language constructions constitutive? Strategic uses of conventional discourses about immigration. J Int Relat Dev 16, 262–293 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2012.18
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2012.18