Iberica 13 Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 ISSN: 1139-7241 / e-ISSN: 2340-2784 Abstract The present study explores the interplay of metaphor, metonymy and evaluation in an American and Spanish parliamentary speech by President Obama and PM Rajoy, aiming at convincing the public of economic victory through positive self- evaluation and other-deprecation. A further objective is to investigate whether there is a relationship between the speakers’ ideological positions and the entities that are evaluated. Within the general framework of CDA for parliamentary debates (van Dijk, 2005), we use Martin and White’s Appraisal scheme as an analytical tool. The results reveal that both political candidates used evaluation in their speeches as a tool to justify and persuade the audience of their economic decisions. On the other hand, both politicians used evaluation, not as an expression of their own ideological traits, but also as an ideological tool that would favor their intentions of rising to power. Keywords: parliamentary speech, metaphor, metonymy, evaluation, persuasion. Resumen Metáfora, metonimia y evaluación como mecanismos políticos en el discurso parlamentario americano y español Este estudio investiga la interacción entre metáfora, metonimia y evaluación en un discurso parlamentario del Presidente Obama y del Presidente del Gobierno Rajoy cuyo objetivo es convencer a la audiencia de recuperación económica por medio de las estrategias de presentación positiva de sí mismo y negativa del contrario. Otro objetivo es analizar si hay una relación entre las posturas ideológicas de los candidatos y las entidades evaluadas. Dentro del marco general de Análisis del Discurso para los debates parlamentarios (van Dijk, 2005) Metaphor, metonymy and evaluation as political devices in American and Spanish parliamentary political discourse Ana Belén Cabrejas Peñuelas IULMA – Universitat de València (Spain) ana.belen.cabrejas@uv.es 75 Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS utilizamos el modelo de Evaluación de Martin y White como herramienta de análisis. Los resultados indican que los políticos utilizaron evaluación en sus discursos como herramienta para justificar sus decisiones económicas y para persuadir a la audiencia. Por otra parte, los dos utilizaron la evaluación, no sólo como expresión de sus características ideológicas, sino también como instrumento para alcanzar el poder. Palabras clave: debate parlamentario, metáfora, metonimia, evaluación, persuasión 1. Introduction Ample research (Ferrari, 2007; Charteris-Black, 2009; Cabrejas-Peñuelas & Díez-Prados, 2014; Díez-Prados, 2016) reveals that politicians have a wide selection of linguistic strategies at their disposal to gain votes (e.g. political implicatures, rhetorical figures, evaluative language, lexical choice, among others), while at the same time they create a positive self-image and put the others (typically, the opposing party/ies) in a negative light. Two of such devices are metaphors and metonymies, which are used as powerful tools due to their persuasive power (Díez-Prados, 2016), for their role in ideological positioning (Ferrari, 2007) and for their ability to emphasize the positive characteristics of the ‘in-group’ and to highlight the negative traits of the ‘out-group’ (van Dijk, 1998).  Parliamentary discourse is considered a “specific genre of political discourse” (van Dijk, 2005: 67), which serves politicians’ aim to meet certain objectives: “dominating the opposing candidate with a view to seducing their main addressees: citizens” (our translation) (Sánchez García, 2009: 136). For that purpose, they give political speeches, debate with other politicians, ask questions and give answers. However, “the indisputable protagonist of the debate” (our translation) (Izquierdo Labella, 2014: 41) is the President or Prime Minister, who can use all means available to him to “cajole [the audience] while berating his partisan foes in the chamber before him” (Zug & Ewing, 2018 (online)). One way to do so is through metaphors and metonymies. The language of politics is especially suited for the use of metaphors and metonymies, since they both “play a key role in the development of patterns of reasoning. [These] are created by the speaker or writer with the express purpose of shaping the thinking patterns of the listener or reader” 76 (Littlemore, 2015: 101). Evaluation is also a crucial aspect of metaphor and metonymy, although from the point of view of the language user, metonymy provides subtler ways of communicating nuance and evaluation than metaphor (2015: 1). Thus, complementing an analysis of evaluation with an analysis of metaphor and metonymy may help to unveil what linguistic means politicians resort to appeal to the ‘in-group,’ while deprecating the ‘out-group’ (van Dijk, 1998). The use of conceptual metaphors and/or metonymies has been examined in pre-electoral debates in the uS (neagu, 2013), in the uS as compared to Spain (Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018, 2020) and in debates across languages, such as English and Malay (Charteris-Black, 2003). Also, metaphors and evaluation have been the focus of attention in English and Spanish televised debates (Díez-Prados, 2016). However, to our knowledge none has attempted to analyze the use of metaphors and metonymies and their interplay with evaluation in American and Spanish political speeches in order to ascertain their role regarding positive self-evaluation and other-deprecation (van Dijk, 2005; Littlemore, 2015), for persuasion (Lakoff and Turner, 1989) and for ideological expression. With the aim of providing a contrastive perspective, the present study draws on the results obtained for metaphors and metonymies in the 2015 State of the union Address in the uS (henceforth, SOTu) and in the 2015 State of the nation Address in Spain (henceforth, SOnA) (Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018, 2020) and adds a study of the interplay between metaphors, metonymies and evaluation. In such political speeches, the politicians attempted to convince the audience of achieving an economic victory after a serious economic crisis striking both countries and the world. Also, they attempted to portray a positive image of themselves, while they showed the opposing parties in a bad light. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: 1. What type(s) of evaluative device(s) as found in Martin and White’s (2005) categorization of Attitude are used in the American and Spanish political speeches analyzed? 2. Do metaphors and metonymies in both political speeches fulfill an evaluative function? 3. Are there any differences between the type of evaluative devices used by Obama and Rajoy depending on the ideological makeup of the speakers? METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 77 To answer the three research questions, the metaphors and metonymies (and their interactions) found in the Economy section of the 2015 SOTu and 2015 SOnA (Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018, 2020) have been used to check whether they contain evaluative devices, following Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal model for the study of evaluation. For Díez-Prados (2016: 217), metaphors “can be considered as a kind of prism through which candidates are presented”. When loaded with positive or negative evaluation, they “are likely to have a powerful persuasive force,” since they hold “the power of evaluation” (i.e. we not only import entities from the source domain to the target domain, but we also carry over the way we evaluate the entities in the source domain) (Lakoff and Turner, 1989: 65; italics in original). Similarly, we believe that evaluation can enhance the persuasive role of metonymies, since when we use metonymies, we also carry over the way we evaluate entities, although the metonymic mapping occurs within a single domain (1989: 103). Section 2 compares the SOTu in the uS and the SOnA in Spain and gives a short account of the political background of Obama’s and Rajoy’s political speeches. Section 3 concentrates on metaphor, metonymy and evaluation in political discourse. Section 4 deals with the methodology of the study. Section 5 attempts to provide some light into the results for evaluation in Obama’s and Rajoy’s speeches, followed by the interplay of metaphor, metonymy and evaluation and the similarities and differences between the politicians and, finally, section 6 provides the conclusions to the study. 2. Parliamentary discourse: the State of the Union Address vs. the State of the Nation Address. Socio- political background of the speeches The SOTu in the uS is an annual speech to Members of Congress (in the 20th century, also to American citizens), as mandated by the uS Constitution, in which the President explains the state of the union and makes policy recommendations for the upcoming year. Previously delivered in written form, it was not until the mid-20th century that it started to be delivered orally before a joint session in Congress. Despite the variation among the SOTu’S, Campbell and Hall (2008: 139) identified a three-part rhetorical sequence: public meditations on values, assessments of information and issues, and policy recommendations. There are also recurring thematic elements, such as AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10078 past accomplishments and future goals, bipartisanship  to build consensus and unfailing optimism (Shogan, 2015: 6-8). In addition to these, the 2015 1- hour-long SOTu dealt with a variety of topics, including the economy, natural resources, social policy, healthcare, the Internet, space exploration, terrorism, cybersecurity, foreign policy, and climate change. Economic issues were of especial interest for Obama, who promised his economic policies would benefit all Americans in an attempt to promote himself and the Democratic party ahead of the 2016 election. President of Congress Gregorio Peces-Barba created SOnA in Spain in 1983 with an aim to add modernity and novelty to the Congress. He defined it as “a sort of compilation or general recapitulation” that takes place in the years when there is no Inaugural Address (our translation) (Izquierdo Labella, 2014: 33). It is inspired in the uS SOTu, although it takes a very different format, since it was designed to be a debate. The debate starts with the PM’s intervention, which is followed by the opposing party’s rebuttal and those of other political parties, countered later by the PM’s response. This continues with the resolutions debate, in which each political party elaborates a series of proposals that are voted for or against, all of which adds to the complexity of the overall debate. Parliamentary debates have a number of formal properties of their own: intervention turns and replies for the speakers according to whether they are a member of the Government or the opposing party; speaker or turn-taking control by the Speaker or President of Congress; ritualized forms of address (e.g. “Su Señoría” in Spanish and “Honorable Member” in English); and formal lexical and syntactic structures (van Dijk, 2005: 67) coupled with colloquial forms to appeal to the public and, thus, parliamentary debates are considered “oral text[s] that ha[ve] characteristics of a written text” [our translation] (Sánchez García, 2009: 130). Rajoy’s speech in 2015 lasted for 1 hour and 30 minutes and had the following main sections: economy, corruption, the Catalan independence movement, foreign policy and social policy. Taking advantage of his privileged position as a PM who can introduce the topics he considers most important, Rajoy spent a considerable amount of time on presenting the best economic data of his three years in power and on announcing measures aiming at boosting growth with a view to winning over voters in the upcoming 2015 General Elections. Also, he congratulated himself on bringing Spain out of the crisis without the need for a bailout. In the METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 79 meantime, the opposition parties accused him of unjustified triumphalism, while they stressed the existence of a high unemployment rate and a growing wealth gap. The final aim of the opposition politicians was however not “to accept the present addressee’s own ideas –an impossible task in practice– but to damage the quality of his image in front of the final addressees, that is, the array of citizens” (our translation) (Izquierdo Labella, 2014: 19).  The context of President Obama’s SOTu was one of a country that was slowly coming out of a grueling recession; a healthcare law that provided health insurance coverage to millions of Americans, although it was vigorously opposed by the Republican party due to its high costs; and a plan to offer millions of illegal immigrants work permits in the uS. In addition, the country endorsed a financial regulation reform and a plan for regulating greenhouse gases. In foreign policy, the uS signed a long-term deal with Iran to prevent it from carrying forward a nuclear program, started normalizing diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba and joined the struggle against IS. PM Rajoy gave his 2015 SOnA to a country that was on the road to recovery from a serious economic crisis, as the employment figures indicated, but had undergone cuts in health and education and the poverty levels had risen. Also, the country had seen a major corruption case in the Conservative party, consisting of a vast slush fund that their former treasurer Bárcenas had overseen for more than two decades. In addition, there was a growing independence movement in Catalonia, fueled by a widespread feeling that the central government was taking much more of Catalonia’s tax money than it was giving back. Finally, it had seen the rise of startup parties Podemos (‘We can’) and Ciudadanos (‘Citizens’) that had split the votes between four parties rather than the traditional two –the Socialists and the Conservative party– after voters were angered by at the corruption scandals and were eager to putting an end to austerity in Spain. 3. Metaphor, metonymy and evaluation in political speeches That political language is rife with metaphors and metonymies has been demonstrated by many studies, either by examining metaphors only (Lakoff and johnson, 1980/2003; Semino, 2008; Mussolff, 2012; neagu, 2013; Díez- Prados, 2016), metonymies only (Littlemore, 2015) or both (Meadows, 2006; Catalano & Waugh, 2016). Lakoff and johnson (1980/2003) and Mussolff AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10080 (2012) analyze the role of metaphor as cognitive heuristics for perspectives on social issues (e.g. immigration, unemployment, racism). Semino (2008) and Díez-Prados (2016) study the relation between metaphor and ideology. In addition, neagu (2013) and Díez-Prados (2016) point out the evaluative potential of metaphors in political discourse, while Littlemore (2005) also provides evidence of the evaluative function of metonymy. Metaphors can be defined as mapping conceptual structures from a relatively familiar source domain (e.g. journey) onto a more abstract target domain (e.g. love), thus producing metaphors, such as LOvE IS A jOuRnEy, which takes the form “COnCEPTuAL DOMAIn A IS COnCEPTuAL DOMAIn B” (Kövecses, 2002: 4). Conceptual metaphors should be distinguished from “linguistic metaphors”, which refer to the linguistic expressions used in a given language (e.g. This relationship is going nowhere (linguistic metaphor), where the conceptual metaphor is LOvE IS A jOuRnEy). In conceptual metaphors, “there is a systematic set of correspondences, or mappings” that characterize the metaphor (e.g. in the source domain ‘the travelers’ correspond to ‘the lovers’ in the target domain) (2002: 9). It is precisely these mappings the ones that “provide much of the meaning of the metaphorical linguistic expressions […] that make a particular conceptual metaphor manifest” (2002: 14). Metonymies are defined as mapping in which a source (e.g. Congress) provides mental access to a target (e.g. Congress members) that is “less readily or easily available” (Lakoff and johnson, 1980: 176), as in “I’m sending this Congress a bold new plan” (Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018) (InSTITuTIOn STAnDS FOR ITS MEMBERS). However, unlike in metaphors, the target is understood from the perspective of the source (Barcelona, 2002: 215). This happens because “the metonymic source projects its conceptual structure onto that of the target, not by means of a systematic matching of counterparts [as in metaphor], but by foregrounding the source and by backgrounding the target” (2002: 226; emphasis in original). Lakoff and johnson (1980) further distinguish metaphor from metonymy in terms of the distinction ‘directing attention versus understanding’, among other criteria. It is this notion of ‘directing attention’ the one used in metonymy to hide the less favorable aspects of the target, while stressing the importance of others. The political arena is especially suited to metaphors and metonymies, since politicians can use them to emphasize the positive characteristics of the in- METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 81 group, while highlighting the negative traits of the out-group (van Dijk, 1998). For example, using the metaphor “floods” in relation to immigration may evoke negative emotions in the audience and appeal to the in-group (‘we’) as opposed to the out-group (‘immigrants’). At the same time, metaphors “invite listeners to conceive of one issue or phenomenon in the light of another issue or phenomenon” and, thus, they “shape the way in which people apprehend and respond to a particular issue or event” (Paris, 2002: 427). This suggests that metaphors are potentially manipulative (Díez- Prados, 2016; Paris, 2002), which makes them especially suitable in political discourse. Metaphor and metonymy (and their interactions) can also be employed for ideological positioning, due to their ability to highlight some aspects of a given phenomenon while downplaying others (Semino, 2008; Littlemore, 2015). See (1), in which the metonymy SIMPLIFIED EvEnTS FOR COMPLEx SuB- EvEnT (“turmoil” and “battle”) interacts with the metaphor GOvERnMEnT InvESTIGATIOnS/OPERATIOnS ARE WAR (“fighting” and “scrutinizing”), contributing to portraying powerful CEOs as weak victims of the government: (1) now Mr. Dimon’s tenure is engulfed in turmoil, the consequence of fighting a multifront battle with federal authorities scrutinizing everything … (Catalano & Waugh, 2016: 807). In (1), through victimization and other techniques of positive self- presentation in which metaphors and metonymies are used in both image and text, newspapers “contribute to the dominant ideology which maintains social inequalities” (2016: 813). This suggests that metaphors and metonymies (and their interplay) are “very useful device[s] when one seeks, either consciously or subconsciously, to present one’s own perspective or to influence the views of others” (Littlemore, 2015: 99). However, metonymy may be even more manipulative than metaphor, because it is less easily perceived and is processed in much the same way as literal language (2015: 103). The evaluative function of metaphor and metonymy is particularly important in political discourse, as pointed out by a wealth of researchers (Ferrari, 2007; neagu, 2013; Littlemore, 2015; Díez-Prados, 2016), since political candidates defend their personal and their party’s point of view with an aim to convince the audience, while they attack their opponents. See (2) AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10082 below, in which the conceptual metaphor GOvERnInG IS CARInG (FOR THE PEOPLE) in a face-to-face political debate serves for positive presentation of us and Our actions. The metaphor is realized by the evaluative items interesa (‘concerns’) and importa (‘worries’): (2) Lo único que me i n t e r e s a [Affect: Positive] de ese impuesto [Appreciation: negative] para los bancos, aparte de que me lo explique usted, si lo tiene a bien, es si eso sirve [judgment: Positive] para que haya más crédito [Appreciation: Positive] en España, porque a mí eso sí que me im po rta [Affect: Positive] [The only thing I am interested in about that tax for Banks, apart from an explanation on your part, if you don’t mind, is if that is useful to have more credit in Spain, because that’s what worries/concerns me] (Díez-Prados, 2016: 237, emphasis in original). In i nt er e sa (‘concerns’) and i m po rt a (‘worries’) (in bold and italics), the linguistic expression of the metaphor GOvERnInG IS CARInG and the evaluative device (in terms of Appraisal) coincide. This way, the political candidate “reinforces the idea that he does feel concern for his people, which presents him as a responsible prospective president” (2016: 237). Similarly, the PART FOR WHOLE metonymy in (3) serves Bush as a gambit to refer to past enemies in metonymic terms: (3) And like fascism and communism [judgment: negative] before, the hateful ideologies [Appreciation: negative] that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom [applause] (Meadows, 2006: 7). In (3), Bush implies there is a connection between fascism and communism in the past and terrorists in the present. The term “fascism” is used metonymically to refer to the entire German nazi establishment, while “communism” refers to the political establishment of the Soviet union (2006: 7) and both are evaluated negatively. Bush also negatively evaluates the term “hateful ideologies,” which is used to refer metonymically to the people who hold those ideologies and their terrorist actions. This way, Bush attempts to “shape [the audience’s] thinking patterns” (2006: 7) and shows that metonymy is a powerful tool to sway their opinion to his side. METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 83 4. Materials and methods The 2015 SOTu in the uS and the 2015 SOnA in Spain were first examined to identify the metaphors and metonymies employed (and their interactions) in the Economy section, which is the only common topic to both speeches (see Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018, 2020). The objective was to find out the role of metaphors and metonymies in changing the public opinion towards that of the politicians giving the speeches and, thus, they are used for manipulation. With that aim in mind, we identified the metaphors and metonymies used by President Obama and PM Rajoy in their speeches to convince the audience of economic victory, following the general framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff and johnson, 1980/2003) and Conceptual Metonymy Theory (Dirven and Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 2010). The objective now is to check whether the metaphorical and metonymical expressions exert an evaluative function, following Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory. For the study of metaphors and metonymies, the 2015 SOTu was taken from the American Presidency Project webpage1 (6,718 words) and the 2015 SOnA was obtained from La Moncloa webpage2 (10,719 words), the site of the Presidency of the Spanish Government. The transcriptions were first divided into sections corresponding to the different topics; next, the Economy section in both speeches was analyzed in terms of the metaphors and metonymies used (3,214 words in Obama’s SOTu and 6,310 words in Rajoy’s SOnA; these correspond to 47.84% and 58.87%, respectively of the overall speeches, which highlights the importance of the Economy section). For the study of the interplay between the linguistic phenomena of metaphor, metonymy and evaluation, the transcripts of Obama’s and Rajoy’s political speeches were copied and pasted in text format to be uploaded to a freeware program called uAM corpus tool, developed by Mick O’Donnell.3 This software is, in fact, a set of tools to annotate the text(s), make searches in the corpus and run descriptive and inferential statistics. For the analysis, we used Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal model included in the program, which is used to analyze how the speaker/writer values the entities (people and things) within their texts. It distinguishes between Graduation (evaluation related to intensification), Engagement (evaluation related to the use of different voices) and Attitude (evaluation that is “concerned with our feelings, including emotional reactions, judgments of behavior and evaluation of things”, Martin & White, 2005: 35). In the present article, we concentrate on AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10084 the major category, Attitude, since our interest is focused on the expression of evaluation itself. Attitude is subdivided into three categories dealing with judgment and emotional responses: Affect, which covers the field of emotions (e.g. happy, sad, furious, dislike); judgment, which covers ethics (e.g. natural, skilled, immoral, brave); and Appreciation, which is associated to the field of aesthetics (e.g. boring, well-balanced) (see Figure 1 below): We decided to analyze Attitude in this study because we were interested in finding out to what extent the metaphors and metonymies used by the Democrat and the Conservative politicians expressed attitudinal meanings in an attempt to “present [their] own perspective or to influence the views of others” (Littlemore, 2015: 99). Attitude sheds some light on the way the debaters condemn or praise, attack or defend and negatively or positively describe the policies of the opponent’s party (van Dijk, 2005: 68). Through evaluation, each candidate hopes to win votes in the upcoming General Elections that will help him stay in power, while reducing the chances of the opposing candidate and, thus, there is a lot at stake. This suggests that evaluation is a rhetorical device for positive presentation of us and Our METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 85 METAPHOR, METONYMY AND EVALUATION AS POLITICAL DEVICES Ibérica xx (xxxx): …-… White, 2005: 35). In the present article, we concentrate on the major category, Attitude, since our interest is focused on the expression of evaluation itself. Attitude is subdivided into three categories dealing with judgment and emotional responses: Affect, which covers the field of emotions (e.g. happy, sad, furious, dislike); Judgment, which covers ethics (e.g. natural, skilled, immoral, brave); and Appreciation, which is associated to the field of aesthetics (e.g. boring, well- balanced) (see Figure 1 below): ! Figure 1. The Attitude network. We decided to analyze Attitude in this study because we were interested in finding out to what extent the metaphors and metonymies used by the Democrat and the Conservative politicians expressed attitudinal meanings in an attempt to “present [their] own perspective or to influence the views of others” (Littlemore, 2015: 99). Attitude sheds some light on the way the debaters condemn or praise, attack or defend and negatively or positively describe the policies of the opponent’s party (van Dijk, 2005: 68). Through evaluation, each candidate hopes to win votes in the upcoming General Elections that will help him stay in power, while reducing the chances of the opposing candidate and, thus, there is a lot at stake. This suggests that evaluation is a rhetorical device for positive ME serpehtnI.)53:5002,etiWh itAt tu ist serteinruoecins, utitAt rthtoindeidivdbusis vochcihw,tcffeA:sesnopsre ilsdi tnemgduJ); ochichw, assichihw,noiatecirppAdan ! ONITAULAVEDNAMYYONTME,ORHPATME noetartnecnocew,elcitratnes niosserpxeethnodesucis djuithwglinaedsierogteaceer .g.(esnoitomef odlefiehtrsev . .ge(sicthesrevo alurnat , ll iethtaesfodele htotedatciosas ! SECIVEDLACITIOLPSAON ,yrogetacromehtn . lfeitsntioaluavefo l antioomednat nemgd happy, dsa , suiorfu , el laromim , eavbr ); .ge.(csi ngibor , llwe - ! eancbal ee(s woleb1erugFi ! :)w ! ! ! ! ! ittAezylanaotdedicedWe ehttnetxetahwottuognidnfi ciitilope viatsnoCe htdan epnwo]reiht[tenesr“p itceprs ! .korwnetude titAtThe 1.e gurFi wesuacebydutssihtniedut useimynotemdnarsohpateme eanmalnidutitatedsesrpexsan f osweivehtecneuflniotr oevi ! nidetseretnierewew tracomeDehtybdesu ottpemtatannisgniean reomeltti(L”rsehtof ! epnwo]reiht[tenesr“p itceprs omsdshesudetittA.99)2015: ategndanddroacktat 2005:k,Dn va(y trpas’ntoppone ginmocpuethinsteovinwto osecnahcehtgnicudereliwh tahts steggsus ihT.ekast ! I f osweivehtecneuflniotr oevi retbadehety awheton ghtileom e bicresdyelvitisoproyelviat hT.68)2005: ,noitaulavehguro ehill wt athsntiocleEl areneG ,dnaetadidnacgnisoppoehtfo lacirotehras inoitaulave ! I xxca ibér xxx(x ): …-… ,reomeltti(Lrsehtof ,esiaprorn mondecsr e htfoesciilope ht sepohetadidnachcae , rewopinytasimhlp tatolasiereht,suht d e vitisoprce iev actions and negative presentation of Them and Their actions (Cabrejas- Peñuelas & Díez-Prados, 2014; van Dijk, 2005) For the study, we carried out a content analysis of the text, assigning labels corresponding to the appraisal schemes. In most cases, labels were attached to individual words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs), but in some cases, the unit of evaluation spanned phrases or even clauses or sentences. An example of the latter would be (4): (4) Obama: Fifteen years into this new century, we have picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off, and begun again the work of remaking America [judgment: Tenacity: Positive Attitude]. In order to guarantee consistency in the analysis, the whole debate was analyzed by one researcher and to ensure inter-rater reliability, another researcher analyzed 30% of the debate. The two researchers coincided in 85.45% of the cases in the Attitude analysis. In those cases where there were discrepancies, these were discussed until a consensus was reached. Also, some methodological decisions were made: First, it was decided to calculate the number of Affect, judgment and Appreciation items relative to the total number of words in the text to calculate relative frequencies (i.e. #evaluative items/total number of words). The second methodological decision referred to the use of the chi-square test to check whether the differences between the political candidates were significant or were due to chance. 5. Results and discussion This part has been divided into three parts: we first present the quantitative results for the study of evaluation in Obama’s SOTu and Rajoy’s SOnA; then, we analyze the interplay between metaphor, metonymy and evaluation; and, finally, we explore the influence that ideology may have on the use of evaluative devices by the Democrat and Conservative politicians. 5.1. Results from the analysis of evaluation In this subsection, we present and discuss the main findings regarding the frequency of evaluation devices by the two politicians to answer our first research question (What type(s) of evaluative device(s) as found in Martin and White’s (2005) categorization of Attitude are used in the American and Spanish AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10086 political speeches analyzed?). The results have been derived from the analysis of the 2015 Obama’s SOTu and the 2015 Rajoy’s SOnA, following Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory. We mention only the results that proved statistically significant (see Table 1).4 When contrasting the three types of Attitude, Appreciation (i.e. the evaluation of things, processes or states of affairs aesthetically or with the social value the object is accorded) is the most frequently used by both politicians and Affect (i.e. the evaluation of an entity, process or state emotionally) is the least used; judgment (i.e. the evaluation of human behavior from an ethical standpoint, criticizing or praising actions, deeds, sayings, beliefs, motivations, and so on) falls within the other two. Political speeches are used to assess things, processes and human behavior and less so emotions, which explains the differences between the Attitude types. Closer examination of the relative frequencies reveals that both political candidates rely on different uses of Attitude devices to build rather different images  that would help them to gain electoral votes in the upcoming elections, while at the same time reducing the opposing candidates’ chances METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 87 METAPHOR, METONYMY AND EVALUATION AS POLITICAL DEVICES Ibérica xx (xxxx): …-… the evaluation of an entity, process or state emotionally) is the least used; Judgment (i.e. the evaluation of human behavior from an ethical standpoint, criticizing or praising actions, deeds, sayings, beliefs, motivations, and so on) falls within the other two. Political speeches are used to assess things, processes and human behavior and less so emotions, which explains the differences between the Attitude types. + Weak significance (90%); ++ Medium significance (95%); +++ High significance (98%). Table 1. Evaluative devices in the 2015 Rajoy’s SONA and 2015 Obama’s SOTU Closer examination of the relative frequencies reveals that both political candidates rely on different uses of Attitude devices to build rather different images that would help them to gain electoral votes in the upcoming elections, while at the same time reducing the opposing candidates’ chances of winning: Rajoy uses more Appreciation to announce new measures to “alleviate the situation of the middle classes” (5.67% for Rajoy versus 3.89% for Obama) (!2 = 8.64, p<.02) in a political move that will help his chances of re-election. In contrast, Obama uses more Judgment (3.15% for Rajoy versus 3.55% for Obama) (!2 = 10.44, p<.02) to show his actions (and the Government’s) to be an attempt to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, while also offering a contrast with Republicans’ actions. These are unlikely to approve the President’s proposals and monetary requests, given their control of Congress. And yet, Obama rolls out major proposals to frame his legacy.5 The Appraisal results also of winning: Rajoy uses more Appreciation to announce new measures to “alleviate the situation of the middle classes” (5.67% for Rajoy versus 3.89% for Obama) (χ2 = 8.64, p<.02) in a political move that will help his chances of re-election. In contrast, Obama uses more judgment (3.15% for Rajoy versus 3.55% for Obama) (χ2 =  10.44, p<.02) to show his actions (and the Government’s) to be an attempt to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, while also offering a contrast with Republicans’ actions. These are unlikely to approve the President’s proposals and monetary requests, given their control of Congress. And yet, Obama rolls out major proposals to frame his legacy.5 The Appraisal results also reveal that Obama and Rajoy focus on the positive policies aiming at boosting growth, while taking credit for the Government’s role for leading the way (6.62% of Positive Attitude versus 6.47% for Obama) (χ2 = 14.14, p<.02). However, Rajoy shows higher rates of negative Attitude than Obama to refer to the critical situation of Spain and the negative measures adopted by the previous government (2.52% of negative Attitude for Rajoy versus 1.18% for Obama) (χ2 = 13.72, p<.02). When focusing on judgment, Obama judges the normality (i.e. how special/(un)usual a person’s behavior state is) (χ2 = 42.47, p<.02) and Rajoy judges the Capacity (i.e. an assessment of the competence and/or ability) of the Appraised elements (χ2 =  8.23, p<.02). Indeed, Obama positively evaluates human behavior (his government’s behavior) from an ethical point of view to set an optimistic note to his speech (see (5)), while Rajoy positively evaluates in over 80% of the cases the capacity of the Conservative Government to deal with the crisis, as in (6): (5) Obama: But tonight, we turn the page. […] More of our kids are graduating than ever before. More of our people are insured than ever before. And we are as free from the grip of foreign oil as we’ve been in almost 30 years [judgment: normality: Positive Attitude]. (6) Rajoy: We balanced our external balance and stopped spiral of debt that trapped us [judgment: Capacity: Positive Attitude].6 Within Appreciation, all subtypes – Reaction (i.e. what strikes or makes you react somehow), Composition (i.e. how well the parts of the entity fit together) and Social valuation (i.e. whether something is socially valued for its usefulness, worthiness, efficaciousness, or health-giving properties) – show significant differences (p<.02). Certainly, in his SOnA Prime Minister Rajoy congratulates himself for turning the nation around from a situation of near-bankruptcy without the need for a bailout. He also announces AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10088 measures to speed up growth and help the middle classes, such as giving tax breaks to encourage permanent contracts to workers, extending spending on welfare for families, cutting judicial fees and introducing a “second chance” law to help households pay off their debts. These measures are represented by a relative frequency of 5.67% of Appreciation (χ2 =  8.64, p<.02), particularly the subtypes of Social valuation with 4.03% (χ2 =  19.11, p<.02) and Composition with 0.54% (χ2 = 7.09, p<.02) (see (7)): (7) Rajoy: Once the flat-rate for contracts [Appreciation: Social valuation: Positive Attitude] finishes, we’ll start a reduced tax break [Appreciation: Composition: Positive Attitude] for new permanent contracts [Appreciation: Composition: Positive Attitude]. In contrast, President Obama uses higher rates of Reaction to contrast past –when he took office amid a historic recession and two uS wars– and present, which shows a brightening economic picture that demonstrates that he was right and his adversaries, misguided all along (1.65% of Reaction, χ 2 = 12.13, p<.02) (see (8)): (8) Obama: At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious […]. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude]. 5.2. Interplay between metaphor, metonymy and evaluation Previous studies (Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018, 2020) have analyzed metaphor and metonymy in the 2015 SOTu and the 2015 SOnA (see Table 2 below). The results indicate that Obama and Rajoy used metaphors and metonymies to persuade their audiences of economic victory and, thus, used them ideologically. Also, they attempted to gain support and justify their economic decisions (which in Spain involved having budgets slashed and the rise of the cost of living) by portraying a country that had recovered from a serious financial crisis: a growing economy (ACTIOn FOR RESuLT/THE ECOnOMy IS A LIvInG ORGAnISM), deficits cut (ACTIOn FOR RESuLT/GOvERnInG IS HEALInG/THE GOvERnMEnT IS A SuRGEOn), recovery (ACTIOn FOR RESuLT/THE ECOnOMIC CRISIS IS A DISEASE), among others. Both politicians further envisage the economic crisis as a natural phenomenon and, hence, employ the discourse of natural tragedy (“spiral of debt,” “darkest months,” “shadow”). At the same time, they rely on the us/Them relational pair to attribute positive characteristics to us and their METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 89 in-groups (the Democrat and Conservative politicians and their political parties) and negative traits to Them (the Republican party in the uS and the Socialist party in Spain). next, we address our second research question (Do metaphors and metonymies in both political speeches fulfill an evaluative function?) by presenting some examples of the interplay between metaphor/metonymy and evaluation (the linguistic realization of the metaphor/metonymy has been indicated with underlining and the Appraisal item in bold) (see (9)): (9) Obama: So the verdict is clear (ECOnOMy IS A vERDICT) [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude]. Middle class economy works [Appreciation: Social valuation: Positive Attitude]. Expanding opportunity works [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude] (ECOnOMy IS A MACHInE) […]. In (9) the linguistic expression of the metaphor and the evaluative item are close to each other but do not coincide, unlike in (10), in which they are unified (also, Díez-Prados, 2016): (10) Rajoy: We wanted to take the country out of the trap it was in (THE FInAnCIAL CRISIS IS A COnTAInER), restore the production tissue (GOvERnInG IS HEALInG) [judgment: Social valuation: Positive Attitude], stop the disappearance of jobs [judgment: Social valuation: Positive Attitude], recover trust (ACHIEvInG A PuRPOSE IS ACHIEvInG A DESIRED OBjECT) [judgment: Capacity: Positive Attitude] […]. In (10), the Prime Minister expresses the ethical concern that he (and his Cabinet) went through to solve the Spanish economic crisis without resorting to a bailout, which had meant serious budget cuts for Spaniards AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10090 METAPHOR, METONYMY AND EVALUATION AS POLITICAL DEVICES Ibérica xx (xxxx): …-… (8) Obama: At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious […]. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude]. 5.2. Interplay between metaphor, metonymy and evaluation! Previous studies (Cabrejas-Peñuelas, 2018, 2020) have analyzed metaphor and metonymy in the 2015 SOTU and the 2015 SONA (see Table 2 below). The results indicate that Obama and Rajoy used metaphors and metonymies to persuade their audiences of economic victory and, thus, used them ideologically. Also, they attempted to gain support and justify their economic decisions (which in Spain involved having budgets slashed and THE RISE OF THE COST OF LIVING) by portraying a country that had recovered from a serious financial crisis: a growing economy (ACTION FOR RESULT/THE ECONOMY IS A LIVING ORGANISM), deficits cut (ACTION FOR RESULT/GOVERNING IS HEALING/THE GOVERNMENT IS A SURGEON), recovery (ACTION FOR RESULT/THE ECONOMIC CRISIS IS A DISEASE), among others. Both politicians further envisage the economic crisis as a natural phenomenon and, hence, employ the discourse of natural tragedy (“spiral of debt,” “darkest months,” “shadow”). At the same time, they rely on the Us/Them relational pair to attribute positive characteristics to Us and their in-groups (the Democrat and Conservative politicians and their political parties) and negative traits to Them (the Republican party in the US and the Socialist party in Spain). OBAMA Metaphors Metonymies RAJOY Metaphors Metonymies TOTAL 176 148 TOTAL 259 225 Total types 24 58 Total types 30 62 Type/token ratio 0.14 0.39 Type/token ratio 0.12 0.28 [# metaphors or metonymies / total number of words] x 100 5.48 4.60 [# metaphors or metonymies / total number of words] x 100 4.10 3.57 Table 2. Total numbers of metaphors and metonymies and relative frequencies. Next, we address our second research question (Do metaphors and metonymies in both political speeches fulfill an evaluative function?) by presenting some examples of the interplay between metaphor/metonymy and evaluation (the linguistic realization of the metaphor/metonymy has been indicated with underlining and the Appraisal item in bold) (see (9)): (9) Obama: So the verdict is clear (ECONOMY IS A VERDICT) [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude]. Middle class economy works [Appreciation: Social Valuation: Positive Attitude]. Expanding opportunity works [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude] (ECONOMY IS A MACHINE) […].! and the elimination of hard-fought social rights. Rajoy envisages the financial crisis as a container (THE FInAnCIAL CRISIS IS A COnTAInER) and the Government as a doctor who needs to heal the ailing Spanish economy (GOvERnInG IS HEALInG/THE GOvERnMEnT IS A DOCTOR) until full recovery of trust (ACHIEvInG A PuRPOSE IS ACHIEvInG A DESIRED OBjECT) and endows them with a moral assessment. This way, Rajoy reinforces his image of a responsible politician before the audience, which makes him a good candidate for the upcoming General Elections. Similarly, the linguistic expression of the metaphor/metonymy coincides with some evaluative items in (11): (11) Rajoy: Spain (PLACE FOR InSTITuTIOn) has gone from being a country on the brink of bankruptcy (THE CRISIS IS A COnTAInER) [judgment: Propriety: negative Attitude] to becoming an example [judgment: Tenacity: Positive Attitude] of recovery (ACTIOn FOR RESuLT) (THE CRISIS IS A DISEASE), which today (TIME FOR PERIOD OF TIME) other countries of the Eu pay attention to. It is not a problem [judgment: Incapacity: negative Attitude] for Europe (PLACE FOR InSTITuTIOn) any more, neither does it need a bailout (ACTIOn FOR EvEnT) [judgement: Incapacity: negative Attitude] nor does it have to abandon the euro (MOnEy FOR InSTITuTIOn) [judgment: Incapacity: negative Attitude]. In this example, Rajoy pictures the crisis as a container and as a disease; also, the metonymies ACTIOn FOR EvEnT and MOnEy FOR InSTITuTIOn are endowed with a moral assessment, which stresses the incapacity of Spanish institutions to carry out certain tasks during the crisis. It was not until his party governed that the country’s economy improved and set an example for the rest of Eu countries. And yet, journalists and politicians criticized his words for being inaccurate and far from the reality of Spaniards.7 The Prime Minister’s words, which attempted to win over the electorate were markedly ideological, because they did not correspond to reality.8 Likewise, in (12) Obama takes credit for an improving economy by using metaphors and metonymies and evaluative language: (12) Obama: At this moment (POInT In TIME FOR PERIOD), with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry (ECOnOMy IS A LIvInG ORGAnISM), booming energy production (ACTIOn FOR RESuLT) [Appreciation: Reaction: Positive Attitude] – we have risen (ECOnOMy IS MOTIOn) [judgment: Capacity: Positive Attitude] from recession (EFFECT FOR CAuSE) (RECESSIOn IS DOWn) [Appreciation: Social valuation: negative METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 91 Attitude] freer [judgment: normality: Positive Attitude] to write our own future (ECOnOMy IS A nARRATIvE) than any other nation on Earth. Indeed, in “growing,” “shrinking,” “bustling” and “booming” the ECOnOMy IS A LIvInG ORGAnISM metaphor, the ACTIOn FOR RESuLT metonymy and positive evaluation coincide in an attempt to offer a bright picture of the economy of the present time. This however does not fully comply with the slow economic improvement and poor-quality jobs of the concurrent uS economy. Thus, Obama’s words have ideological purposes, as he seeks to impose his own vision of reality. Also, the linguistic expression of the ECOnOMy IS MOTIOn metaphor (meaning ‘upward movement from something inherently negative’) and positive judgment of American citizens’ capacity (which also includes the Democrats’ capacity) interplay. This way, Obama offers a contrast with the past that is characterized by recession. In “recession”, in turn, negative Appreciation interacts with the RECESSIOn IS DOWn metaphor and the EFFECT FOR CAuSE metonymy, which points to the crisis as having an unknown origin, since the real culprits are not mentioned. The final aim is to persuade the audience of the good results obtained. But, besides basking in the economic resurgence, President Obama also needs to appeal to the public with specific proposals for the middle classes in a political move to press Republicans to make new coalitions with Democrats (Condon, 2015 (online)). See (13) below, in which Obama attempts to make his words resonate with the public by using the ECOnOMy IS A MACHInE metaphor and Positive Appreciation. The conflation of the metaphor and evaluation helps him to stress the need for high-paying jobs and the Government’s positive role in achieving that aim. This is part of Democrats’ notion of morality, following the MORAL ACTIOn IS FAIR DISTRIBuTIOn metaphor, typical of the nurturant Parent family, due to their interest in equality (Lakoff, 2002): (13) Obama: As we better train our workers, we need the new economy to keep churning out high-wage jobs [ECOnOMy IS A MACHInE] (Appreciation: Social valuation: Positive Attitude) for our workers to fill [jOBS ARE A COnTAInER]. Since 2010, America [PLACE FOR InSTITuTIOn] has put more people back to work than Europe, japan [PLACE FOR InSTITuTIOn] and all advanced economies [PART FOR WHOLE] combined. AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10092 5.3. Evaluation and the politicians’ ideological makeup In order to answer our third research question (Are there any differences between the type of evaluative devices used by Obama and Rajoy depending on the ideological makeup of the speakers?), we examine which entities are evaluated in terms of Appraisal and how this is carried out. Both speeches are tinged with ideology, since both politicians hold and defend different ideological positions: Obama is progressive and liberal and Rajoy, conservative. The politicians’ ideologies are manifested in their choice of topics for the speech, as they can select the topics they consider most important, which is especially the case of Rajoy, although for Obama there are topics that have historical roots. However, their ideologies are most apparent in the reasons why economic decisions are made: for liberal Obama, these are of a social nature, including tax hikes on the wealthy, tax cuts for middle-class citizens, free community college tuition and paid leaves for workers and families.9 For Conservative Rajoy, his economic decisions include introducing stimulus measures to encourage jobs; and new tax breaks and measures to support families, which are often used to attract its traditional voters. The analysis of Appraisal of the Economy section of Obama’s speech reveals that Obama positively evaluates his economic measures consisting in taxing wealthy Americans and large corporations to pay for benefits for working families, while at the same time those measures also benefit companies that invest in America (see (14)): (14) Obama: Let’s close [judgment: Social valuation: Positive Attitude] the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top one percent to avoid paying taxes [judgement: Social valuation: negative Attitude] on their accumulated wealth. We can use that money to help more families pay for childcare and send their kids to college [judgment: Social valuation: Positive Attitude]. Obama’s stance on taxes and on Government regulations, his support for equality and for increasing workers’ minimum wage and his interest in other economic decisions that help preserve the social welfare safety net demonstrate his liberal ideology. Obama’s economic measures are also used in an evaluative fashion to reinforce the idea that he feels a deep concern for the people and is, thus, a responsible prospective President. Despite the accusations that the PP party favors the interests of the wealthy, Rajoy also positively evaluates a new economic measure intended to help the METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 93 middle classes consisting in tax breaks to encourage more flat-rate permanent contracts and his next challenge, which would be creating three million new jobs (see (15)): (15) Rajoy: […] we’ll start [judgment: Propriety: Positive Attitude] a flat rate for permanent contracts [Appreciation: Composition: Positive Attitude]. The first 500€ are exempt from paying social security [Appreciation: Social valuation: Positive Attitude]. Rajoy further mentions other extraordinary employment allowances, including the ‘Prepara’ Program, the Employment Activation Plan and a reform of the current vocational Training program, which he evaluates positively in an attempt to project a positive presidentiable image (see (16)): (16) Rajoy: We want to support [judgment: Propriety: Positive Attitude] workers’ employability, especially those most vulnerable [Appreciation: Social valuation: Positive Attitude] and favor [judgment: Propriety: Positive Attitude] business’s productivity and competitivity. It seems, therefore, that both politicians, regardless of their ideology, present themselves (and the parties they represent) as defenders of the middle classes in an attempt to sway voters to their side. not to defend them would imply losing votes in the upcoming General Elections (also, in Díez-Prados, 2016). At the same time, they blame the opposing party for the ills of the crisis (“the economic recession that we inherited from the previous Government”), attack the policies of the opposing party and the opposing party itself for not giving credit to the measures put in place or planned by the Government by using negative evaluation. For example, in (17) liberal Obama accuses Republicans of not raising the minimum wage, since the Conservative wing’s ideological position holds antisocial policies because of their economic costs:  (17) Obama: To everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage [judgment: normality: negative Attitude], I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise. In sum, both political candidates, irrespective of their ideological position, defend policies that are typical of a left-wing ideology, that is, tax breaks and benefits for middle-class families, which they evaluate positively. Whether AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10094 this is true in both politicians’ agendas or is part of their political strategy to persuade voters is outside the scope of this study. What is important, however, is that with Presidential elections in sight, evaluation serves politicians to paint a rosy picture of themselves and their actions so as to win the support of voters, while they also deprecate others and their actions (Cabrejas-Peñuelas & Díez-Prados, 2014: 180). 6. Conclusion The present study has attempted to ascertain the role of evaluation in political speeches aiming at persuading the electorate of the political decisions made, its interplay with metaphor and metonymy and the differences in the evaluative devices used depending on the speakers’ ideological stance. We now recall the research questions guiding this paper in order to provide an answer: 1. What type(s) of evaluative device(s) as found in Martin and White’s (2005) categorization of Attitude are used in the American and Spanish political speeches analyzed? The Appraisal analysis of Obama’s SOTu and Rajoy’s SOnA reveals different uses of evaluation in their speeches. Indeed, while Obama judges human behavior from an ethical viewpoint, Rajoy evaluates things and processes aesthetically and expresses social value. judgment is also used differently by the two politicians: Obama focuses on the need for change (judgment: normality); that is, on moving past the Iraqi and Afghan wars and recession and embracing his economic policies that will move the country forward. However, Rajoy focuses on his capacity (and his Cabinet’s) (judgment: Capacity) and, thus, presents himself as a steady leader who kept his nerve during the crisis and managed to steer Spain away from a bailout. As regards Appreciation, Obama highlights the emotional reactions to the economic plans of his Administration, while Rajoy judges the social value of his economic proposals for the middle classes and gives details of the types of proposals made. Obama and Rajoy also use Polarity differently: both show the success of their economic decisions to move away from economic recession and the opposing party’s failure. However, Rajoy particularly dwelt on the Socialist’s failure, and thus manifests higher rates of negative Attitude than Obama. METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 95 2. Do metaphors and metonymies in both political speeches fulfill an evaluative function? The analysis of Obama’s and Rajoy’s political speeches further uncovers the fact that metaphors and metonymies abound in this type of political discourse and that, on occasions, such linguistic phenomena overlap with evaluation. Indeed, through economy metaphors and metonymies, both politicians claim success in the economic arena after years of economic recession as a result of their economic policies, while also they take direct aim at the opposing party’s policies. But their words have markedly ideological purposes, as they seek to impose their own vision of their country’s economies on their citizens. Through the interplay of metaphor, metonymy and evaluation, both political candidates also attempt to justify their political decisions and, thus, influence the audience’s views: Rajoy takes pride in his good economic results and portrays himself as a safe- choice for re-election in the 2015 General Elections. However, Obama attempts to make his agenda resonate with the public and to obtain a bipartisan appeal for some initiatives targeted at the middle classes which, if not passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, would leave Republicans in the uncomfortable position of being aligned with millionaires. 3. Are there any differences between the type of evaluative devices used by Obama and Rajoy depending on the ideological makeup of the speakers? Despite their opposing ideologies, the evaluative devices used by President Obama and Prime Minister Rajoy show a similar approach in their speeches: President Obama brandishes his own ideological position before the new Republican Congress –he stresses his focus on social welfare, including giving tax cuts for low– and middle-class families, lowering mortgage premiums and offering paid leave. Rajoy also positively evaluates the new economic measures aimed at improving the conditions of the middle classes in view of the upcoming General Elections and the need for voters to think of the Conservative party as holding a moderate ideology. At the same time, through negative evaluation both candidates paint the opposing party and their policies in a negative light. Thus, in the context of General Elections (i.e. pre-electoral debates (Cabrejas-Peñuelas & Díez-Prados, 2014; Díez- Prados, 2016) or parliamentary speeches) political candidates use evaluation, not as an expression of their own ideological traits, but as an ideological tool AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10096 of positive self-presentation and negative other-deprecation that would get them in power once again. Article history: Received 13 September 2019 Received in revised form 14 January 2020 Accepted 24 February 2020 References METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 97 Barcelona, A. (2002). “Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: an update” in R. Dirven & R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 202-277. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A.B. (2018). “Metonymy in Spanish and American parliamentary speeches: Obama’s State of the Union Address versus Rajoy’s State of the Nation Address”. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación/Culture, Language and Representation 19: 45-69. Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A.B. (2020). “The language of recovery: Metaphors in Obama’s and Rajoy’s political speeches”. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (REsLA) 33(1), 27-54. Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A.B. & M. Díez-Prados (2014). “Positive self-evaluation versus negative other-evaluation in the political genre of pre- election debates”. Discourse and society 25(2): 159-185. Campbell, K.K. & K. Hall Jamieson (2008). Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Catalano, Th. & L.R. Waugh (2016). “Representations of power: A critical multimodal analysis of US CeOs, the Italian Mafia and government in the media”. Journal of Language and Politics 15(6): 790-817. Charteris-Black, J. (2003). “Speaking with a forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in english and Malay phraseology”. Metaphor and symbol 18(4): 289-310. Charteris-Black, J. (2009). “Metaphor and political communication” in A. Mussolff & J. Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and Discourse, 97-115. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Condon, S. (2015). “Obama revamps the State of the Union”. Cbs News. URL: [03/09/2019]. Díez-Prados, M. (2016). “The use of metaphor and evaluation as discourse strategies in pre-electoral debates: Just about winning votes” in M. Romano & M.D. Porto (eds.), Exploring Discourse strategies in social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and Cross-linguistic Perspectives, 215- 244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dirven, R. & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2010). “Looking back at thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics” in e. Tabakowska, M. Choiński & Ł. Wirszaka (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action, 11-70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. european Commission. (2015). “european economic Forecast”. European Economy. URL: [03/09/2019]. Ferrari, F. (2007). “Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a ‘preventing war’ persuasion strategy”. Discourse and society 18(5): 603-625. Izquierdo Labella, L. (2014). El Estado de la Nación: 30 años de la historia de España a través de un debate. Unpublished PhD Humanities Department. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Kaplan, R. (2015). “Obama’s 2015 State of the Union to-do-list”. Cbs news. URL: [03/09/2019]. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980/2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ana Belén Cabrejas-Peñuelas is an Associate Professor at the university of valencia (Spain). She investigates the cognitive processes involved in second or foreign language writing, in particular the revision process, although she is also concerned with Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Her most important publications deal with L2 writing processes, evaluation and the interplay of evaluation, metaphor and metonymy for persuasion in political language from a contrastive perspective. NOTES 1 The 2015 State of the union Address can be consulted on the American Presidency Project webpage: . 2 The 2015 State of the nation Debate can be downloaded from La Moncloa webpage 3 The program can be downloaded for free from the webpage . AnA BELén CABREjAS PEñuELAS Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-10098 Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: CUP. Llamas, M. (2015). “Los mayores ejemplos de recuperación son Irlanda y los países bálticos”. Libremercado. URL: [03/09/2019]. Martin, J.R. & P.R.R. White. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Meadows, B. (2006). “Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: a critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004-2005”. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1(2): 1-17. Muñoz, e. (2015). “No pedir el rescate fue la gran medida social de esta legislatura”. Cadena ser. URL: [03/09/2019]. Mussolff, A. (2012). “The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis”. Critical Discourse studies 9(3): 301-310. Neagu, M.I. (2013). Decoding Political Discourse: Conceptual Metaphors and Argumentation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Paris, R. (2002). “Kosovo and the metaphor war”. Political science Quarterly 17(3): 423-450. Sánchez García, J.F. (2009). Estudio programático del discurso periodístico político español. A propósito de los debates sobre el Estado de la Nación. PhD Dissertation. Universidad de Granada. Semino, e. (2008). Metaphors in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shogan, C.J. (2015). The President’s state of the Union Address: Tradition, Function, and Policy Implications. URL: [15/08/2019]. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage. van Dijk, T.A. (2005). “War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimatization of the war in Iraq”. Journal of Language and Politics 4(1): 65-91. Zug, Ch. & C.M. ewing (2018). “What happened to the State of the Union Address? Originally, it helped the president and Congress deliberate”. The Washington Post. URL: [03/09/2019]. 4 In this study, we take p<0.05; that is, a significance level of 95%, which is considered significant in social sciences (Dörnyei, 2007: 210). 5 That Rajoy uses more Appreciation may explain the reactions happened in the aftermath of the speech (Muñoz, 2015): “Data everywhere about how much the employment has risen, how much the risk premium has been lowered, how much pensions have increased […] and the large number of economic aids in Education (our translation) (Muñoz, 2015 (online)). Similarly, some journalists (e.g. Kaplan, 2015) commented after Obama’s speech the President’s attempt to contrast with Republicans and, thus, leave a positive legacy: “His State of the union address was all about putting those proposals on the table, and offering a contrast with Republicans” (Kaplan, 2015 (online)). 6 Due to space restrictions, the examples have been provided only in English. 7 Some journalists (e.g. Llamas, 2015) criticized Rajoy’s words in the aftermath of the debate: “How truthful is that assertion? The truth is that data contradict Rajoy. […] Spain is growing and creating employment but the national recovery is very far from that other countries of the Eurozone have been registering for a long time, such as Ireland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania” (our translation) (Llamas, 2015 (online)). 8 The European Commission’s winter economic forecast for European countries reveals that countries, such as Ireland and Lithuania are growing faster than Spain (European Commission, 2015 (online)). 9 Obama is a liberal in the uS sense; that is, he proposes fiscal policies that benefit low and middle classes and these would be paid with tax increases on the wealthy. He also supports equality, environmental issues, universal healthcare, and gun control. However, unlike liberals in Europe, he believes in the Government regulating the economy. METAPHOR, METOnyMy AnD EvALuATIOn AS POLITICAL DEvICES Ibérica 40 (2020): 75-100 99