Conceptual Metaphors and Rhetoric in Barack Obama’s and Xi Jinping’s Diplomatic Discourse in Africa and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the use of conceptual metaphors in Barack Obama’s and Xi Jinping’s diplomatic discourse in both Africa and Europe. Drawing on four speeches, this paper begins by examining the pervasiveness of metaphor utility in the speeches by using Pragglejazz Metaphor Identification Procedure. This paper examines the underlying concepts in the identified metaphors by using Lakoff and Johnson conceptual metaphor framework. Finally, this paper examines the significance of conceptual metaphors as a rhetorical strategy in diplomatic discourse. This paper found out that both Barack Obama and Xi Jinping employed an exceptionally high number of metaphors in their discourse in Africa and Europe. We found out that metaphors used by each leader do form an underlying concept. Barack Obama’s diplomatic discourse embodies journey metaphors while Xi Jinping’s diplomatic discourse embodies nature metaphors. The paper illustrates how both leaders draw on neutral lexical units such as distance, crossroads, pace, path, water, lions, mountains, wells, et cetera and charge them with metaphors as a rhetorical strategy in order to draw African and European audiences closer to their primary message.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".