Identity, Narrative and Metaphor

A Corpus-Based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse

E. L'Hôte

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137427380
• eBook ISBN: 9781137427397
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book shows that the discourse of the Labour party 1994-2007, revolving around three key concepts of identity, narrative and metaphor, not only reflected new Labour's policy and organisational changes, but that it was also an essential part of its successful strategies of renovation and of power legitimation.

1

General Introduction

1.1 A corpus-based cognitive analysis of political discourse

In his seminal study of language as social semiotics, Halliday argues that disciplinary crossovers allow for a renewal of social and linguistic inquiries.

In the walled gardens in which the disciplines have been sheltered since the early years of this century, each has claimed the right to determine not only what questions it is asking but also what it will take into account in answering them […]. We have to take account of the questions that are raised by others; not simply out of a sense of the social accountability of the discipline […] but also out of sheer self-interest – we shall better understand language as an object if we interpret it in the light of the findings and seeking of those for whom language is an instrument, a means towards inquiries of a quite different kind. (Halliday 1978, 3)

New interpretations and new answers necessarily stem from new ways of looking at an issue and the questions that emerge thereof. This book builds on such insights as its primary concern is the political dimension of language, i.e., the means by which we construct our identities as individuals as well as members of a coherent whole (Robin Tolmach Lakoff 2000). Based on the observation that language, discourse and the way in which a speaker decides to name a concept are never gratuitous, it looks at how such phenomena influence the construction of political discourse and the conceptualisation of politics itself. I propose an analysis of new Labour discourse in Britain during the 1994–2007 period. This study finds its originality both in its framework for analysis, and in the interpretations it offers. It is an attempt at a corpus-based cognitive analysis of political discourse.

One of the central claims of Cognitive Linguistics from its foundations (Langacker 1987a; 1987b; 1991) is that linguistic structures do not merely represent the world around us, but that they necessarily introduce a specific interpretation of it. “Meaning thus relies on our ability to conceptualize the same object or situation in different ways” (Lemmens 1998, 8), which depend on what particular aspect of the object or the situation is brought to the foreground of discourse, or “profiled” (Langacker 1987a; 1987b; 1991). This also means that other aspects of meaning can be backgrounded, or hidden, depending on the speaker’s choices of structure and lexicon. The basic tenets of Cognitive Linguistics prove highly relevant to the study of politics, as whatever words and structures are used to frame a particular issue have a serious impact on the way it is then perceived by the public. Similarly, what is not profiled in political discourse is at least as important as what is actually brought to the foreground.

Such phenomena have been denounced by proponents of the British framework known as Critical Discourse Analysis as cases of “manipulating language to control public perception” (Fairclough 2000, vii), as well as dishonesty due to a discrepancy between speech and reality (Fairclough 2000; 2001). While there is value in such a critical position, as discussed in Chapter 2, I choose to concentrate on the processes of framing and conceptualisation at work in political discourse, and look at them as strategic applications of basic elements of cognition to the field of politics. The theoretical framework used in this study combines various cognitive linguistic models as they have been applied to the field of politics with insights from Critical Discourse Analysis. As detailed in Chapter 2, it draws on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (George Lakoff and Johnson 2003; Semino 2008), Mental Space Theory (Fauconnier 1994; Sweetser and Fauconnier 1996; Sweetser and Dancygier 2005), and Blending Theory (Coulson and Oakley 2001; Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Coulson 2006). These models can inform Discourse Analysis meaningfully by preserving a satisfying degree of scientific objectivity, at least partly because they offer a more conceptual and functional take on linguistic phenomena often restricted to instances of ideological manipulation.

A strong reliance on corpus-based analyses is as central to the study as this theoretical framework: an extensive collection of empirical data provides the basis for all the analyses presented in the following chapters. Substantial corpus data and quantitative results enhance the scientific accuracy of the claims put forward, without neglecting qualitative analyses. They can prevent “inaccuracies and over-generalizations” (Lemmens 1998; see also Widdowson 1996) typical of studies of discourse based on a limited number of texts, and allow for more relevant patterns and phenomena to be uncovered. Similarly, in Cognitive Linguistics, the use of corpus-based methods has brought empirical justifications to some prior intuition-based claims, while invalidating others, especially in the case of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Cienki 2005; Semino 2008). It has also opened up new directions for metaphor research. Based on these assumptions, the present study relies on a carefully-designed research protocol and a certain fluency in specific quantitative techniques. It is partly automated through the use of WMatrix (Rayson 2009), an online tool for corpus analysis and corpus comparison that produces concordance tables, frequency lists and keyness analyses, which is described in detail in Chapter 2, along with the nature of the corpus data under scrutiny.

Overall, the theoretical and methodological frameworks proposed here can be described as a corpus-based cognitive analysis of political discourse, applied to the specific case of the new Labour Party in Britain between 1994 and 2007.

1.2 The relevance of new Labour in the study of political discourse

The discourse of the British new Labour Party is an ideal candidate for study, since the party managed to stay in power for ten years in the 1994–2007 period after an efficient process of renovation. This was a necessary evolution, as before its May 1997 victory, the party had been in opposition for over 22 years and had not enjoyed a true parliamentary majority in over 30 years (Chadwick and Heffernan 2003). Both in discourse and policy, the party had to deal with a post-Thatcherite world based on a neo-liberal paradigm, at the risk “not merely of missing the electoral bus, but of becoming completely irrelevant to dealing with the pressing problems of contemporary politics” (idem, 7). This meant progressively abandoning touchstones of Labour policy connected to “the state-managed collectivist paradigm of the mid-twentieth century” (idem, 9) like nationalisation, trade unionism, reduction of defence spending and increase of all other types of state expenditure. In other words, in order to preserve its relevance in the country, the Labour Party had to adapt to the world as it was in the mid-nineties and implement a shift away from the left of the British political spectrum.

It is important to stress that all the changes in the party did not suddenly occur in 1994–5. They started about a decade before, at the impulse of Neil Kinnock after the infamous failure of the 1983 Manifesto, known as the “longest suicide note in history” (Seyd and Whiteley 2002, 6). In addition to the organisational evolution of the party, with the one-member-one-vote policy for parliamentary candidates for instance, it was at that time that the party started changing its positions on matters as central as council housing, Europe, nuclear disarmament, trade unions and the market economy. By 1992 the Labour Party was already a new version of itself in many aspects.

We have now effectively completed the building of the new model party […] The product is better, the unity is real, our democracy is healthier, our grassroots more representative and the whole outlook now geared to the realities of government rather than the illusions of opposition. (Peter Mandelson, quoted in Seyd and Whiteley 2002, 6)

In spite of the reforms already in place, the party still failed to remove the Conservatives from office in 1992. One possible reason for this failure is that while changes to party policy and party organisation were already in progress under Kinnock and Smith, changes to the very identity of the party only occurred after 1994. Two of the most symbolic actions undertaken under Tony Blair’s leadership to that effect were probably the introduction of the adjective new in the name of the party, which is analysed in Chapter 3, and the rewriting of Clause IV of the constitution of the party, which was considered “the ideological bedrock of the party, […], the statement of aims and objects enshrined in its constitution” (Riddell 1997, 24).

A brief analysis of the two versions of Clause IV of Labour’s constitution illustrates the afore-mentioned evolution of the party. The first version of the Clause was written by Sydney Webb in 1917, and describes that the fourth objective for the party as follows:

[t]o secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. (Seyd and Whiteley 2002, xvi)

The new version of the clause was adopted at a special conference at Easter 1995. It reads:

[The Labour Party] believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few. (Seyd and Whiteley 2002, xv)

The 1995 Clause relies on more general and abstract terms, in a future-oriented tone. Most strikingly, the objective of common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange – one of the cornerstone of the Labour Party until the early 1980s, disappears from the 1995 version and is replaced by a more general and less committing objective of leaving power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few. These quantifiers used as nouns allow for vagueness in the identity of the represented, who are not necessarily restricted to a traditional working-class electorate anymore. Similarly, if the work force is explicitly called workers by hand or by brains in 1917, the 1995 reference is vague and all-encompassing (all of us, a community). Several concrete aspects of government and policy (such as control, administration, industry, service) disappear from the 1995 Clause. The term means is no longer associated with the noun production but with the infinitive to realise, thus changing its meaning from concrete resource to abstract capability. Means of production, distribution and exchange are replaced with more intangible elements such as power, wealth and opportunity. Work is referred to in both versions, but industry in the 1917 clause becomes endeavour in 1995, thus putting emphasis on the goal to be reached in addition to the effort itself (OAD 2009). Equality takes on a new meaning as it is related to future and opportunity (for each of us the means to realise our potential) instead of referring to equal distribution.

All in all, the 1995 version of Labour’s Clause IV signals relevant changes in the party, in areas of policy (public ownership and industry are no longer priorities), philosophy and/or ideology (e.g., meaning of equality) and in their targeted audience (from the working class to the entire population). It also signals that in addition to changes in party policy and party organisation, the elaboration of a new discourse was essential to the legitimation of a new version of the party in the eyes of the British public.

The successful renovation of the party that brought Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s team of modernisers to power in 1997 has led to a boom of what can be termed new Labour research. From historical and political perspectives, three types of arguments emerge. Proponents of new Labour argue that the party’s policies are still distinct from those of preceding Conservative governments, and can be identified as post-Thatcherite politics. The basic argument here is that by moving away from the left of the British political spectrum, the party has found a “Third Way” beyond left-right dichotomies and has managed to strike a balance between economic success and social inclusion (see for instance Giddens 1999; Driver and Martell 2002). New Labour’s approach has also been identified as the adoption of Conservative policies in a wide range of areas, notably in the case of the economy. In this case, the party’s acceptance of the British neo-liberal state of the 1990s is interpreted as catching up to Thatcherite politics and to a political middle ground that had by then shifted to the centre right of the British political spectrum. “[B]y the completion of the Policy Review […] Labour had ceased effectively to be a social democratic party, committed as it had by then become a pervasive neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and to a basic acceptance of the legacy of the Thatcher years” (Hay 2003, 59; see also Heffernan 2000). A third group of analysts argues that new Labour has established continuity with both Conservative and Labour heritages, so that a degree of accommodation with Thatcherism does not preclude the modernisation of its own social democratic tradition. According to Coates, this is true even for economic issues: “[t]he rhetoric of New Labour may be different, and its willingness to use state controls may be less, but the underlying closeness of its relationship with private corporate capital is not new in Labour Party terms” (Coates 2001, 300).

New Labour discourse itself has been studied from various perspectives. Fairclough (2000; 2005a) looks at it through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis and sets out to prove that it amounts to “Thatcherism with a few frills” (Fairclough 2000, viii). His analysis is explicitly defined as a “critique of the language of New Labour,” and argues that “New Labour’s absolute rejection of state ‘interference’ in the economy [means] that the language of the ‘Third Way’ is just […] mere words, empty rhetoric” (idem, ix). Finlayson and Martin (2008) analyse new Labour discourse from a rhetorical point of view and yield pertinent results as far as new Labour’s presentation of time and political space and its role in the party’s narrative of change is concerned, as discussed here in Chapter 5. The nature and functions of conceptual metaphors in new Labour discourse have also been discussed with different degrees of precision, from the metaphor of society as a container (Koller and Davidson 2008) to metaphors of politics as ethics and religion (Charteris-Black 2004; 2006) and the party’s exploitation of journey metaphors in their discourse on change (Semino 2008). These studies inform the present analyses of new Labour discourse, and ample reference is made to them in the following chapters, either to corroborate them or invalidate some of their claims.

1.3 Book outline

The main goal of this study of new Labour discourse is to show how it not only reflects the party’s policy and organisational changes, but how it can also be considered an essential part of the party’s successful strategy for the 1994–2007 period. My analyses bring further support to Coates’ view of the renovation of the party as a combination between accommodation of Thatcherism and modernisation of a social democratic tradition.

The first chapter of the book details the theoretical and methodological aspects of a corpus-based cognitive analysis of political discourse. In the first part, I concentrate on the proposed theoretical framework in connection with two large theoretical strands: Cognitive Linguistics, and Discourse Analysis. They each have their own methods and assumptions, yet I show how Cognitive Linguistics and Discourse Analysis relate to each other and what bridges can be built between them. After a brief account of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which is prominently featured in subsequent analyses, I show how Mental Space Theory and Blending Theory allow for relevant results in the study of discourse as well. Discourse analysis is then established as a varied field in which different traditions cohabitate. The British framework known as Critical Discourse Analysis receives specific focus as the most relevant candidate for this study. I conclude that a focus on the cognitive aspect of discourse diminishes the need for theories of ideology and hegemonic struggle put forward by Critical Discourse Analysis. This leads to the elaboration of a method where Discourse Analysis is meaningfully informed by Cognitive Linguistics, while empirically grounded in careful corpus analysis. The second part of the chapter focuses on data analysis and corpus description. It shows how the tools provided by corpus linguistics complete the theoretical framework built in the first part, and explains that this study of new Labour discourse is based on a large corpus of political texts requiring a detailed procedure for analysis. I present the basic assumptions supporting corpus linguistics, and show how both Cognitive Linguistics and Discourse Analysis can benefit from such empirical methods, as the scientific accuracy of a researcher’s claims can be enhanced without denying the pertinence of qua...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Copyright Material
• 1 General Introduction
• 2 Designing a Corpus-Based Cognitive Analysis of Political Discourse
• Part I The New Labour Identity 51
• Part II New Labour and the Discourse of Change 121
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index