"People matter. Freedom matters. Peace matters": conceptual metaphor analysis of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

"People matter. Freedom matters. Peace matters": conceptual metaphor analysis of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches

Anastasiia Skichko

MA in Philology, PhD Candidate,

National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute",

University of Granada (Spain)

SANDRINE PERALDI

Lecturer/Assistant Professor,

School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics,

University College Dublin (Ireland)

STEPHEN LUCEK

Lecturer/Assistant Professor,

School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics,

University College Dublin (Ireland)

У статті розглядаються лінгвістичні особливості побудови промов Володимира Зеленського, проголошених на початку російського вторгнення на територію України, а саме впродовж лютого та березня 2022 р. Теоретичне підґрунтя дослідження базується на теорії концептуальної метафори та теорії концептуальної інтеграції. Окрім цього, теорія концептуальної метафори слугує для розробки схеми концептуального аналізу, котра вбудована в інтерфейс UAM Corpus Tool. UAM Corpus Tool -- це зручне у використанні програмне забезпечення, за допомогою якого можливо здійснити ручну та автоматичну анотацію великих за обсягом текстових корпусів будь-якого типу. Для того, щоб проаналізувати процес формування значення в публічному дискурсі, у ході цієї роботи розглядаються лише лінгвістичні та аудіальні модуси, зокрема виступи Володимира Зеленського та їх письмові варіанти тексту. Варто зазначити, що, хоча це дослідження не включає в себе візуальні, жестові та просторові модуси, вони можуть бути враховані під час подальших наукових розвідок мотиваційних виступів і потенційно покращити отримані результати. До того ж, у ході дослідження було виявлено, що Володимир Зеленський використовує у промовах широкий спектр концептуальних метафор, зокрема структурних, онтологічних та будівельних. З огляду на це, онтологічні метафори є найчастотнішими, оскільки вони яскраво відображають здобутий "фізичний досвід" мовця протягом певного періоду часу. Використання теорії концептуальної інтеграції значно підсилює отримані дані та уможливлює побудову мереж ментальних просторів України та Росії, які відображені у промовах Президента України. У випадку з Росією, ментальний простір концепту COUNTRY накладається на ментальний простір, котрий складається з двох концептів TERRORISM та AGGRESSION. Володимир Зеленський достатньо чітко зображує позицію України у ході повномаштабного вторгнення, з огляду на це він об'єднує ментальний простір COUNTRY з ментальним простором, що базується на концептах FREEDOM та LIFE.

Ключові слова: метафора, аналіз концептуальної метафори (CMA), вихідний домен, цільовий домен, концептуальна інтеграція, корпусна лінгвістика, UAM Corpus Tool, мультимодальність.



"PEOPLE MATTER. FREEDOM MATTERs. PEACE MATTERs": CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR ANALYsIs OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY'S SPEECHES

AnastasiiaS. Skichko, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute", University of Granada (Spain) e-mail: anastasiia.skichko@gmail.com Sandrine Peraldi, University College Dublin (Ireland) e-mail: sandrine.peraldi@ucd.ie Stephen Lucek, University College Dublin (Ireland) metaphor conceptual metaphor analys

Key words: metaphor, Conceptual metaphor analysis (CMA), source domain, target domain, conceptual blending, corpus linguistics, the UAM Corpus Tool, multimodality.

This article draws upon the investigation of distinctive features in Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches delivered during the period of the Russian invasion that started on 24 February 2022 and one month after it. The focus of the article is on the application of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) developed by Lakoff & Johnson, and Conceptual Blending invented by Fauconnier & Turner. These two leading approaches have taken a crucial position in cognitive studies and are the central methods used in conducting research in this particular domain. Consequently, in the framework of this article, these theories are regarded as essential resources for scrutinising the peculiarities of the speeches "The war of Russia is not only the war against Ukraine" dated 1 March 2022, and "Ukraine needs heavy weapons" dated 13 April 2022 delivered by the Ukrainian President. Similarly, the data for the study is analysed and processed by means of a corpus-based method and the UAM Corpus Tool, a software program that provides the necessary built-in or self-created layers to implement all-embracing and grounded manual annotation of any type of text corpora.

To examine the effective conveyance of meaning in public discourse, this research primarily centers on linguistic and auditory modes, specifically analyzing the speeches of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and their corresponding transcripts. It is worth noting that while this study does not currently encompass visual, gestural, and spatial modes, they hold the potential for inclusion in future investigations of motivational speeches, which could potentially augment the research outcomes.

In conclusion, the investigation of these data has revealed that Volodymyr Zelenskyy tends to utilise a vast range of conceptual metaphors, specifically structural, ontological, and building. With this in mind, ontological metaphors are the most frequent since they depict the "physical experience" of the speaker. Finally, by applying Conceptual Blending, we can examine how the President makes reference to Russia by overlapping the mental space of COUNTRY with the mental space of TERRORISM, and AGGRESSION. Additionally, in the case of Ukraine, he merges the mental space of COUNTRY with the mental space of FREEDOM, and LIFE.



Introduction

The metaphor study occupies a significant place among the sciences concerning the investigation of language peculiarities and formation of speech such as pragmatics, semantics, and discourse analysis. However, due to its versatile structure and a great number of different properties, metaphors have become the central topic to discover among adjacent sciences such as psychology, philosophy, terminology, and lexicology [Ritchie, 2013, p. 1]. As a result, the metaphors are investigated by a considerable range of the following prominent scholars: G. Lakoff & M. Johnson [1980]; L.D. Ritchie [2013]; Z. Kovecses [2000, 2002]; D. Chiappe & J. Kennedy [2001]; E. Semino [2008]; K. Burke [1969]; R. Carston [2010]; R. Carston & C. Wearing [2011]; D. Davidson [1978]; P. Rubio Fernandez [2007]; D. Gentner & B. Bowdle [2001]; P. Grice [1989]; A. Goatly [1997]; A. Deignan [2005]; J. Humbley [2017, 2018], and S. Lucek [2017]. Meanwhile, the development of metaphor studies has acquired another pace of progression after the representation of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) to the general scientific audience. CMT was established by G. Lakoff & M. Johnson [1980] who enhanced the idea that metaphors are embodied in our mind in their revolutionary book “Metaphors We Live By". Similarly, their ideas have provoked the development of a new approach toward metaphor examination as well as transformed the vision of the metaphors' role in human life and cognition.

In terms of public discourse, the effectiveness of the usage of metaphors depends on the speaker's aim and the factual manner of delivering the speeches to the audience. Considering the fact that metaphors are deeply related to the production of knowledge, they could underline problematic issues, pay attention to the most crucial aspects, and even influence understanding within the speech [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980; Peraldi, 2011]. Obviously, the content of that type could not be excessively overwhelmed by the conceptual metaphors because of the strict and rigid structure influencing the clarity and comprehensiveness.

This article addresses the question of how Volodymyr Zelenskyy presents his public discourse, especially in terms of the conceptual metaphor analysis that he uses in order to portray Ukraine and Russia. Accordingly, the main objectives of this research are the delineated examination of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches by means of the UAM Corpus Tool and the development of the Conceptual Blending schemes on the representation of Russia and Ukraine's images embodied in the layout of the two verbal performances.

To reach the aforementioned aims the following research questions were elaborated on and intruded into the article layout: whether the conceptual metaphors may be observed as the essential tool for construing successful public discourse in wartime; what type of conceptual metaphors is predominant in Volodymyr Zelenskyy's discourse; which axiology of the used conceptual metaphors is prevailing and in which way it could affect the general rhetoric; and what are the four-space models of Russia and Ukraine in the alignment with the processed empirical material.

Backgrounds

The multifaceted plane of conceptual metaphor has provoked active engagement of the adjacent sciences for further and deeper investigation of its peculiarities such as cognitive grammar [Langacker, 1987], sociolinguistics [Wierzbicka, 1997], cognitive linguistics [Lakoff, Turner 1989; Lucek 2017], philosophy [Mahon, 1999], discourse studies [Steen, 1999], psycholinguistics [Kovecses, 2000], terminology [Humbley 2017, 2018; Peraldi, 2011] and corpus linguistics [Deignan, 2005].

Designing this study requires the comprehension of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) as the most prominent area of cognitive linguistics. Consequently, the various approaches toward metaphor studies will be described in order to reconsider various adjacent aspects of CMT as well as metaphor definition and typology.



Metaphor as an essential linguistic unit

The most common definition of metaphor is offered by L.D. Ritchie [2013] who is convinced that this phenomenon is a form of figurative language in the framework of which something is defined in terms of something else. Similarly, Z. Kovecses defines metaphor as a special figure of speech that identifies one object in terms of another one. This traditional point of view represents a metaphor as an independent unit that is fundamentally used for rhetorical and aesthetic objectives and formed on the basis of similar characteristics applying to the two elements that may be contrasted and determined. For example, the metaphor could be equated to a simile which is another figure of speech containing the comparison element “like" in its foundation, for example, “brave like a lion". However, the aspect of comparison in metaphor is repeatedly omitted and mostly formed with regard to subjects, objects, and predicates mostly formed by means of the verb “to be", for instance, “Achilles was a lion in the fight" [Kovecses, 2002, p. 7].

D. Chiappe and J. Kennedy claim that simile and metaphor possess the property to enhance the momentary salience of a particular characteristic that is already known to the specific subject, thus certifying that they adhere to the moment of speaking. The interesting fact is that these traits may be recognised and meaningfully attached to the aborded topic, or they could portray totally different connotations [Chiappe and Kennedy, 2001, pp. 250-253].

In reality, metaphor constitutes a much wider and multilayered concept leading to a large number of definitions. For instance, E. Semino states that metaphor is an indispensable component construing the fluency of our language that is served to understand one thing in terms of another [Semino, 2008, p. 1]. Accordingly, Yanow [2008] identifies metaphor as the proximity of two improbable notions existing in a common contextual situation, where their acknowledged meanings interrelate in order to convey a completely new metaphor meaning.

Consequently, metaphor is regarded as an “online pragmatic adjustment" of the encoded lexical meaning that is formed as the consequence of a particular concept. Meanwhile, the literal connotation of the metaphorically utilised language is sustained by metaphoric meaning. In this case, that particular kind of language is affected by a multifaceted pragmatic process that provokes and enhances the appearance of affective and imagistic effects. Nevertheless, because of the great variation of the literary or novel metaphors, there are a significant number of “unexplored paths" in terms of their investigation [Carston, 2010; Carston, Wearing, 2011]. For instance:

Conceptual metaphor: DEMOCRACY IS FRAGILITY: ...destroy our democracy [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

Novel metaphor: A LIVING BEING IS CLOTHES: And if we do anything less, we will tear apart the fabric [Rice, 2012].

On the contrary, D. Davidson claims that the vivid peculiarities of metaphor may only emerge in the framework of literature. Thus, according to him, the metaphor could possess exclusively a literal meaning. The essential and primordial purpose of metaphor is to convey a covert imagistic effect by demonstrating the unique sides of the analysed notion without its clear justification and determination [Davidson, 1978, p. 46].

Meanwhile, the literal interpretation of the structural components of a metaphorical expression is approached before the figurative interpretation of the utterance is derived at a local lexical level. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile pointing out that the literal meaning construing the novel metaphor may be suppressed, while figurative meaning may be reached only after the process of understanding the complexity of utterance [Sperber, Wilson, 2002].

D. Gentner and B. Bowdle outline that metaphor could be understood as a “species of analogy". Since it constructs the solid connections in the framework of the conceptual system's structural elements that are target and base domains. In these linkages, relational correspondence is predominant and more structurally united compared to other correspondence built on the basis of isolated object attributes. The structure-mapping theory represents the postulate that metaphor definition should commence with the joint depiction of the topic and corresponding elements in a “one-to-one mapping" by means of “parallel connectivity" [Gentner, Bowdle,2001, p. 226].

According to P. Grice, due to the usage of metaphor, it is possible to decode and better understand a speaker's intentions in various communicative situations, to provoke the appearance of different conversational implicatures while adhering to the Principle of Cooperation, and, finally, to indicate the distinctive features of the non-literal meaning in terms of linguistically encoded connotation in the particular utterances [Grice, 1989, p. 27].

The classification of metaphors

The central works concerning metaphor classification were developed by G. Lakoff [1987] and A. Goatly [1997] who tried to divide various stages of conventionality. To begin, Lakoff does not adhere to the opinion that the usage of the word "dead" is appropriate in the context of non-innovative metaphors [Lakoff, 1987, pp. 143-147]. R.W. Gibbs [1994] states that almost all dead metaphors lose their compositional qualities, however, their factual forms are preserved and remained without any change. For instance, according to him, the expression “fall in love" is viewed to be a “dead" metaphor.

According to G. Lakoff, all metaphors are possibly subdivided into four groups. The first group may be identified by the word "pedigree" which comes from the French language and signifies “crane's foot". He named it “firstly linguistically dead" due to the absence of original literal meaning, image, and the evanescence of mental mapping [Lakoff, 1987, p. 143]. The second group may be characterised with regard to the word "comprehend" (with the meaning “take hold") where the linguistic use and linguistic mapping are eliminated but conceptual mapping is preserved. The third group is represented by the American-English word "dunk" depicting the process of playing in football, which particularly means “the special move". It preserves the metaphorical linkages that are comprehensible for the interlocutor. Moreover, all former literal senses of the word are present in this category of metaphor and are probably used in all contextual situations. Next, G. Lakoff denotes the third type of metaphors as "dead" because they are “one-shot metaphors" where the one domain does not coincide and embodies the key structure into other domain in various perspectives [Lakoff, 1987, p. 144]. Finally, the fourth group is schematised by the word "grasp" denoting “live" and conventional metaphors. Indeed, in this specific group, all literal and conceptual senses of the word are conservated and common to the users whilst linguistic mapping is present and systematically conveyed [Lakoff, 1987, p. 145].

A. Goatly's approach [1997] toward metaphor classification is drawn upon texts naturally exposed and narrowed in different written sources and are widely available to society. He constructed a more extensively wider classification which identified five categories of metaphors as grades of conventionality: Active, Tired, Sleeping, Buried, and Dead. Correspondingly, inactive metaphors comprise tired and sleeping metaphors.

Dead metaphors are typically represented by the homonyms formed as the result of the former literal senses barely used in real life or in the case of deprivation of solid linkages between several senses not perceived by the user of language during a prolonged period of time. For instance, “germ" meant “a seed", however, nowadays it is understood as “a microbe" [Goatly, 1997, p. 32].

Buried metaphors involve analogous principles of structuring, particularly when a set of senses acquire the formal discrepancy. For example, “clew" was “a ball of thread", but at this moment “clue" is regarded in terms of “a piece of evidence" [Goatly, 1997, pp. 32-33]. Given that, the lexical form of the word underwent changes and was modified in accordance with the current trend in language exploitation.

In sleeping metaphors, the two senses of the words are built on the principle of polysemy, particularly the coexistence of various linguistic interpretations. Within their structure, the metaphorical meaning sporadically conditions the appearance of the literal meaning that may be preserved and exploited in modern life. However, in this case, metaphorical meaning is regarded as conventional. As an example, according to the contextual situation, the word “vice" could change its meaning into “gripping tool" and “depravity" [Goatly, 1997, p. 33].

Originally, the fourth category of metaphors named "tired metaphors" is polysemous as well and in alignment with its nature is almost equivalent to the sleeping ones. Nevertheless, the outstanding difference between both of them concerns the frequency of stimulating the literal sense by the metaphorical meaning. For instance, considering the equivocal word “fox" it is possible to admit that its first sense “dog-like mammal" applies to a kind of animal as a natural inhabitant, and another one “cunning person" is used in terms of description of human characters in a slightly negative way [Goatly, 1997, p. 33].

Active metaphors comprise the last group of Goatly's classification. The lexical linkages between metaphorical and literal senses are not constituted. The literal meaning is completely vivid and provokes the appearance of the metaphorical meaning on its foundation. To cite an instance, the word “icicles" has two senses “rod-like ice formations" and “fingers" [Goatly, 1997, p. 34].

A. Deignan combined Layoff and A. Goatly's approaches and created a specific categorisation in order to trace distinctive features of metaphorically-motivated linguistic expressions regardless of their characteristics by using corpus data. Given that, Deignan has designed four predominant genres of metaphors that are possible to examine in the miscellaneous subtypes of a corpus such as innovative, conventionalized, dead, and historical [Deignan, 2005, p. 39]. The following examples demonstrate the nature of living metaphors:

1. Innovative metaphors: ...the lollipop trees [Cameron, 2003]

2. Conventionalized metaphors: There is no barrier to our understanding [Halliday, 1994]

3. Dead metaphors: crane [Goatly, 1997]

4. Historical metaphors: comprehend, pedigree [Lakoff, 1997]

On these grounds, then, the investigation of innovative or so-called "author" metaphors is viewed to be focal in the literature research because of their unique structure and factual elements that ultimately convey an absolutely new and exclusive meaning of the linguistic utterance. Following this, there are two reasons influencing the formation of blurred boundaries between conventionalised and innovative metaphors. Firstly, it is worthwhile pointing out that a plethora of individual linguistic expressions traverses these boundaries over time, thus, it allows thinking that almost all conventionalised metaphorical expressions were innovative at a particular period of time. Secondly, the subsequent argument concerns the disagreement about the “ingenious" characteristics of the innovative metaphors from the side of individuals. When examining the corpus/data, the most convenient way to detect innovative metaphors is to analyse the word frequency: if one word occurs less than one time per thousand words, it can be regarded as innovative or rare. The next type of metaphor is a historical metaphor. The meaning of historical metaphors refers to the metaphorical extension from a literal sense which is obsolete and incomprehensible nowadays because of historical shifts in society. They can also be identified through word frequency or by carrying out a semantic analysis. Meanwhile, in the case when it is impossible to relate different metaphorical expressions with literal sense or similar parts of speech, they may be categorised as historical metaphors [Deignan, 2005, p. 40].

The last subcategories are conventionalized and "dead" metaphors that are viewed to be substantially frequent in use, but in some cases, it is extremely difficult to differentiate them in particular contexts. A. Pawelec defines a “dead" metaphor as a lexical item with a conventional meaning dissimilar from its original meaning [Pawelec, 2006, p. 118]. Nevertheless, A. Goatly [1997, pp. 32-34] names the dead metaphors “sleeping" and conventionalised nominates as “tired". The description of all these classifications is given at the beginning of this subsection. However, Goatly is persuaded that these two types of metaphors are probably to be differentiated according to the speaker's cognitive intention and usage of literal meaning [Deignan, 2005, p. 41].

The most significant type of metaphor is the conceptual metaphor. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson [1980] differentiate three primordial types of conceptual metaphors: structural, orientational, and ontological. Following this, Z. Kovecses is persuaded that metaphor is designed to denote and define one conceptual domain through another in terms of cognitive linguistics. To put it succinctly, the structure of the conceptual metaphor may be schematised such as “conceptual domain A is equal to the conceptual domain B" [Kovecses, 2002, pp. 25-26]. Hence, it could be stated that the conceptual metaphor comprises the source and target domain. Theoretically, the target domain frequently consists of metaphorical expressions, while the source domain includes the linguistic units deeply rooted in the daily aspects of our life [Kovecses, 2002, pp. 2528].

It should be noted that conceptual metaphors reflect human experience and cultural peculiarities, thus, the source domain occasionally depicts the categories of the basic level that clearly demonstrate the world synergy [Stockwell, 2002, p. 109].

In accordance with the latter, the conceptual metaphor categorisation is observed to be the most appropriate for the analysis of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches since it is possible to investigate the mental organisation of the President's experience by its means. Meanwhile, the previous classifications developed by A. Goatly, G. Lakoff, and A. Deignan do not portray the full range of the speaker's obtained experience and are limited in their sphere of realisation, which is, in our opinion narrowed to the literature use.

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is regarded as the complex approach toward cognitive studies underlying the outstanding role of metaphor in human cognition. Furthermore, it depicts the multimodal and complex structure of conceptual metaphors diversifying speech not only in the literary domain but in the everyday sphere of our life.

According to CMT, there are three principal types of conceptual metaphors such as structural, ontological, and orientational. Firstly, orientational metaphors are deeply related to the natural motion of particular entities and their physical surrounding. Moreover, they are based on the “spatial orientation" of the living being or other objects and phenomena [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980, pp. 14-21]. The spatial orientation is represented by the following directions: central-peripheral, up-down, deep-swallow, in-out, front-back, and on-off. For instance:

VIRTUE Is UP: If you are worried about the rise of China [Rice, 2012].

Secondly, structural metaphors are metaphors that consist of two complex concepts that are understood in terms of one another. Furthermore, they are observed to be the most frequent and common for construing speech. In its framework, one concept metaphorically echoes, conveys, or transmits via another one. Additionally, the general knowledge of the national heritage and important cultural phenomena may assist to interpret correctly the meaning of structural metaphors [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980, pp. 7-9]. For example:

LIFE Is sCIENCE: You will be tested [Obama, 2006].

Finally, ontological metaphors are metaphors that are built upon one abstract and one concrete domain. Consequently, ontological metaphors are designed to portray reality or various aims and to depict a part of the received experience. Additionally, their structural domains evoke cognition and mind functioning. With this in mind, ontological metaphors are perceived as “selfevidence" or demonstration of a specific mental phenomenon through the personal spectrum [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980, pp. 25-29]. As an example:

WAR Is MACHINE: Russia launched a full-scale war [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

Two other subtypes of ontological metaphors are distinguished by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson such as container and personification. Container metaphors are frequently used by individuals since they possess the aspect of estimating human beings as “containers" with particular mental and emotional attributes. Moreover, the aspect of spatial orientation of physical objects in and out is also available in this subtype of metaphor as well as the accurate size measurement of objects. However, besides the human being, there might be other material, and abstract phenomena in their layout. Finally, Personification is observed as the most vivid metaphorical unit because of explicitness structure. The key components of personification may be any type of material or living objects reflecting the broad spectrum of received experience [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980, pp. 29-31].

In conclusion, according to Lakoff and Johnson's theoretical postulates, each metaphorical unit draws upon the experiential truth assisting us to construe “coherent systems" by means of which a human being “conceptualises experience" [Lakoff, Johnson, 2003, p. 29].

Hence, conceptual metaphors are viewed to be essential units construing our experience, and speakers can conceptualise their knowledge by their application within the speech. In terms of the analysis of public discourse, it is viewed as a crucial tool for discovering the way of conveying the speaker's thoughts that actually form the layout of his public performance. In the alignment with Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory, there are three crucial types of conceptual metaphors such as structural, ontological, and orientation.

Methodology: a combined approach

The empirical material of the article is composed of two transcribed speeches delivered by Volodymyr Zelenskyy at two specific moments: a few days after Russia's invasion and one month after it. Accordingly, the first speech named “The war of Russia is not only the war against Ukraine" and the second is called “Ukraine needs heavy weapons".

To specify, these two speeches are selected for the research analysis due to relatively similar characteristics of the foundations, particularly length, text complexity, lexical density, and reference density which is defined with regard to % of tokens. In addition, as it was mentioned before one of the most primordial criteria for making that choice is conditioned by a close period of their announcement which is fluctuating in the timeframe of up to one month. Then, due to the short length of the speech structures, it may be concluded that these properties of texts stand for accurate qualitative analysis.

From a methodological approach, the author has applied a twofold approach by combining a corpus-led approach, especially in terms of data annotation, and the conceptual-based approach described in the literature review.

On these grounds, it is worthwhile to highlight the authors' contributions to this article. Dr. S. Peraldi, for instance, has provided the necessary tools for fostering a corpus-led approach during the initial stages of analysis, ensuring the acquisition of accurate data. Considering the multifaceted interface of the UAM Corpus Tool, the working framework for Conceptual Metaphor Analysis is developed under the guidance of Dr. S. Lucek. He has introduced a robust theoretical foundation that is complemented by an effective scientific approach to examining conceptual metaphors within public discourse. Finally, with the guidance and methodology received, conceptualization, visualization, and formal analysis were held.

The corpus-led approach allows this research to align with the most recent data-centered trends applied in language studies as outlined by J. Tummers, K. Heylen, and D. Geeraerts [2005]. However, most importantly, the crucial feature of corpus-led studies is that real-life data is placed in a central position, allowing for representativeness and unbiased/objective analysis, thanks to its statistical and quantitative approach.

The conceptual-based approach allows for a discourse-based examination, particularly fitted, for smaller samples of the language under scrutiny. The latter will be applied by means of the theoretical postulates forming CMT.

It should also be specified that the corpus approach will allow the author to potentially uncover linguistic features that were not described/formulated in the CMT, making these two approaches perfectly complimentary.

Corpus-based approach

The corpus-based approach is implemented in the view of the toolkits represented and embodied in the UAM Corpus Tool. The development of the UAM Corpus Tool software program was partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (MEC) under grant number HUM2005-01728/FILO (the WOSLAC project) [O'Donnell, 2008a, p. 15].

With this in mind, the UAM Corpus Tool has a vast range of additional options that could extend the boundaries and framework of the factual research project such as “inter-coder reliability statistics, visualisation of the tagged corpus, production of statistical reports from the corpus, semi-automatic tagging, and cross-layer searching" [O'Donnell, 2008b, p. 1435]. All these functionalities are used during the final stage of the research analysis when the semantic manual annotation is accomplished on all layers of the speeches developed at the beginning. In addition to this, these options undeniably facilitate the procedure of processing the data and the format of the storage of outcomes.

During the interpretation stage, the Chi-Squared method will be used to allow for the detection of the statistical significance, is used. With this in mind, the UAM CorpusTool has this incorporated processing method that is widely used for each comparison of the data files and the level of significance that is interrelated with it [O'Donnell, 2012, p. 35].

From methodological and theoretical perspectives, the significant development of computational tools and corpus-based approaches toward linguistic studies is viewed as a scientific breakthrough providing the opportunity to process a large amount of corpora data and to receive accurate research analysis. According to J. Pearson and L. Bowker, these tremendous improvements facilitate the process of approaching the “naturally occurring data". Furthermore, linguists have obtained a chance to investigate what people have actually said, rather than hypothesising about what they might or should say [Bowker, Pearson, 2002, p. 9].

Peraldi states that the combination of machine-readable data and the advent of computers enable researchers to examine factual information coming far beyond the text level and that was quite complicated to cope with by using intuition. Consequently, it is possible to outline that corpora are viewed as an “objective frame reference providing lexical, semantic, syntactic and statistical evidence of language use" [Peraldi, 2019, p. 267]. In terms of this research, conceptual metaphors except for being linguistic devices, are deeply connected to individual knowledge obtained through the lifespan. Hence, the corpus analysis of the speeches goes beyond the text boundaries and could assist in investigating the speaker's experience influencing the content of the statement. Furthermore, CMT is the most relevant approach for the analysis of such kind because it allows detecting all crucial traits of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches by means of the structural categories embodied in its core, namely classification, structure, and axiology of metaphors.

CMT-induced approach and annotation

The UAM Corpus Tool is viewed as a tool for making manual annotation since by its means is possible to entail the tags to the specific text fragments, expressions, or words. Furthermore, it allows creating the schemes for analysis by evolving the multilayer structure according to the research aim. For example, the text analysis could contain the integral text type, lexical or semantic-pragmatic levels [O'Donnell, 2008b, p. 1434].

Accordingly, manual semantic annotation is viewed to be common in the framework of corpus linguistics and the most appropriate to apply to all corpus data within the framework of this research study. According to P. Rayson and M. Stevenson [2008], semantic annotation allows determining the realisation of senses of word forms in texts, which is particularly related to word sense disambiguation. On these grounds, then, the accurate detections of the conceptual metaphors and their properties are implemented in the view of manual semantic annotation.

With this in mind, the involvement of the conceptual-based approach toward the investigation of conceptual metaphors is regarded to be the most reliable and accurate. J. Tummers, K. Heylen, and D. Geeraerts outline that the corpus-based method is aimed at underlining the ongoing trends in combination with the specific-oriented research aim in language use across the data. Furthermore, the distinctive feature of the corpus-based approach is that the empirical materials are placed in the central position in its layout which is based on three crucial components: quantification, statistics, and putting forward the hypotheses. Hence, the corpus-based approach allows examining multiple complex phenomena by using the most effective means of analysis [Tummers, Heylen, Geeraerts, 2005, p. 235].

Image 1. The self-created scheme for the metaphor analysis

The self-created scheme for the manual annotation in the UAM Corpus Tool was developed by means of CMT and the additional approaches to receive accurate metaphor analysis. Thus, the scheme consists of five layers: conceptual metaphor, novel metaphor, target domain, source domain, and axiology. The layer itself is called “motivation" because it is strongly believed that the usage of conceptual metaphors influences and motivates the audience to a particular decision-making process. It is worthwhile pointing out, that the main target of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's appeal to the international audience is to search for worldwide support, standing, and understanding. Thus, conceptual metaphors play a significant role on the way of achieving this principal communicative goal. The following image represents the scheme for the analysis of the conceptual metaphors within Volodymyr Zelenskyy's public discourse.

he conceptual layer comprises five types of metaphors elaborated by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson [1980], M. Reddy [1979], and Z. Kovecses [2020], particularly: orientational, structural, ontological, conduit, and building. The ontological metaphors are expanded by supplementary sub-types: ontological, container, and personification. Meanwhile, the decision was taken to broaden this classification by conduit and building metaphors [Lakoff & Johnson, 1980]. Meanwhile, the decision was taken to broaden this classification by conduit and building metaphors.

TThe founder of the conduit metaphor is M. Reddy [1979], who states that speakers tend to enclose feelings, inner thoughts, and emotions in their words transmitting or transporting them from one channel to another one. Consequently, the genuine distinctive feature of the conduit metaphor is the process of movement of ideas. In terms of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches, it is presumed that this type of metaphor may be frequent since his second speech aimed at seeking international assistance during wartime. However, the results have shown that the President does not substantially apply them in his verbal performances.

The fifth subclass included in the classification is building metaphors. They were derived from Z. Kovecses's theory describing the metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS as enough subsequent variation, additionally with the distinct dependable and autonomous structures. In accordance with his explanations, grammar, and metaphor could “cross-fertilize each other" [Kovecses, 2020, p. 9]. Analysing thoroughly the content of the research's illustrative material, it is admitted that there are a significant number of building metaphors that could be distinguished and affiliated into a separate category.

Additionally, the most primordial layers of the self-created scheme are target and source domains, which allow tracing the peculiarities of involvement crucial phenomenon influencing the text content and audience understanding in general. These layers are believed to produce the most effective information about the corpora plot [Kovecses, 2002].

Finally, the last layer is axiology which is obligatory to be involved, since it portrays the tone of all mentioned and embodied conceptual metaphors in the speeches reproduced by Volodymyr Zelenskyy. By means of the manual semantic annotation which is implemented in a view of the UAM Corpus Tool, it is possible to define all the structural nuances of the texts embodied by the speaker.

Results and Discussion

In this section, the results from the manual annotation in the UAM Corpus Tool of two speeches delivered by Volodymyr Zelenskyy are discussed and illustrated. Statistics are also provided to illustrate their level of frequency and representativeness in the public discourse.

Motivation layer

The first classification concerns a specific type of metaphors: that of conceptual and novel metaphors. As already mentioned, novel metaphors are considered to be rare. But they might still appear in Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches.

As illustrated in the following table, conceptual metaphors largely prevail whilst while novel metaphors are absent from the data.

Table 1.

	invasion	later
Feature	N	Percent	N	Percent	Chisqu	Signif.
MOTIVATION-TYPE	N=27	N=16
conceptual	27	100.00%	16	100.00%	0.00

For example:

COUNTRY Is A LIVING BEING: Russia didn't know how much we cherished our freedom [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

A LIVING BEING Is A BUILDING MATERIAL: ...everything else that makes us people [Zelenskyy, 2022a].

Conceptual layer

At the conceptual level, it appears that Volodymyr Zelenskyy does not employ orientational or conduit metaphors. This tendency could be explained by the President's initial communicative aim: asking for international and then military support respectively in the first and second speeches. It is conditioned by their properties since orientational metaphors are more related to the spatial orientation and conduit metaphors are designed to transfer the ideas or verbal means of communication from one object to another. Consequently, these features are contextually absent in the President's speeches.

Table 2.

	invasion	later
Feature	N	Percent	N	Percent	Chisqu	Signif.
CONCEPTUAL-TYPE	N=27	N=16
structural	9	33.33%	4	25.00%	0.33
ontological	13	48.15%	11	68.75%	1.73
building_	5	18.52%	1	6.25%	1.26

As illustrated in Table 2, it is worth noting that each metaphorical categories are ranked similarly in both speeches in terms of frequency, although their percentages differ from one speech to another.

Indeed, ontological metaphors largely prevail with a total of 48.15 % in the first speech and 68.75 % in the second speech. Structural metaphors constitute the second most frequent metaphorical units with respectively 33.33 % and 25 %. For instance:

LIFE Is WAR: All as one together who wants to stop the war [Zelenskyy, 2022a].

DEMOCRACY Is FRAGILITY: destroy our democracy [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

As already mentioned, ontological metaphors are divided into three other subcategories which are ontological, container, and personification. Table 3 reveals the results received on the ontological level.

Table 3.

	invasion	later
eature	N	Percent	N	Percent	Chisqu	Signif.
ONTOLOGICAL-TYPE	N=27	N=16
ontological_	1	3.70%	6	37.50%	8.42	+++
container-	2	7.41%	0	0.00%	1.24
personification	10	37.04%	5	31.25%	0.15

The Significance table identifies the highly crucial outcomes exported from the manual annotation, in this case, it demonstrates that ontological metaphors in the second speech marked as later are most recurrent than in the first speech. Besides that, container metaphors are not exploited in the second speech, while in the first speech, they are used but in small proportions. The last subtype of the ontological metaphor is personification which should be described as quite numeral in both speeches due to the statistical results. In terms of the public discourse, the tendency to reunite the representative bodies by naming only the country is viewed to be a frequent occasion. In alignment with Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speeches, he tends to generalise all political figures who stand under the Russian political regime in the context of war by using the word “Russia" throughout the speeches. In addition, it is observed the same pattern in the case of Ukraine. From our viewpoint, by means of personification, it is easier to trace the dynamics of actions in the framework of the content and to assess a particular situation represented by the speaker. Thus, then, personification as a subtype of ontological metaphors plays one of the crucial roles in construing eloquent public discourse with multifaceted structural components during wartime. For example:

WAR Is MACHINE: Russia launched a full-scale war... [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

Russia is A LIVING BEING: Russia still has the capacity. [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

Finally, the third place is divided into building metaphors, according to Table 2 they comprise 18.25 % of the used metaphorical expression in the first speech and 6.25 % in the second. For instance:

FREEDOM is FRAGILITY: Poland, Moldova, Romania, and the Baltic states will become the next targets if the freedom of Ukraine falls [Zelenskyy, 2022b].

A LIVING BEING is FRAGILITY: It breaks...hearts of Ukrainians. [Zelenskyy, 2022a].

Hence, the most reiterated conceptual metaphors applied by Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his speeches are structural, ontological, and building. Meanwhile, it was revealed that the most frequent subtype of the ontological metaphor used by the President is personification. In accordance with the statistics and scientific significance, exclusively ontological metaphors prevail in the second speech rather than in the first one. To conclude, these characteristics of the speeches may be viewed as the distinctive features of Volodymyr Zelenskiyy's public discourse in the context of wartime.

Target and source layer

The analysis of the target and source layer allows for revealing the most frequent concepts used by the President. The target domain of both speeches is represented by the following phenomenon such as ATTRIBUTES, CHANGES, LIFE, TIME, LIVING BEING, COGNITION, COUNTRY, WAR, FREEDOM, WORLD, and CONSCIOUSNESS, which are essential in an abstract nature. The succeeding Table 4 shows the obtained outcomes from the manual annotation of two speeches in the UAM Corpus Tool.

The outcomes on the target layer

Table 4.

	invasion	later
Feature	N	Percent	N	Percent	Chisqu	Signif.
TARGET-TYPE	N=27	N=16
attributes	0	0.00%	2	12.50%	3.54	+
changes	2	7.41%	0	0.00%	1.24
life	6	22.22%	2	12.50%	0.63
time	0	0.00%	1	6.25%	1.73
a-living-being	5	18.52%	0	0.00%	3.35	+
cognition	1	3.70%	0	0.00%	0.61
country	7	25.93%	5	31.25%	0.14
war-	2	7.41%	1	6.25%	0.02
freedom-	1	3.70%	5	31.25%	6.35	+++
world	2	7.41%	0	0.00%	1.24
conscious	1	3.70%	0	0.00%	0.61

According to Table 2, the most distinctive changes concern the ATTRIBUTES, A LIVING BEING, and FREEDOM domains. In the speech “The war of Russia is not only the war against Ukraine" dated 1 March 2022, the LIVING BEING metaphorical category is twice as frequent as in the second one. Meanwhile, in the second speech entitled “Ukraine needs heavy weapons" dated 13 April 2023, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is substantially appealing to the aspect of FREEDOM as a key notion. Moreover, the ATTRIBUTES category is reappeared and employed more often compared to the first speech.

The source domain is viewed as the broadest and extended which is represented by the subsequent elements such as POSSESSIONS, MOVEMENTS, MATERIAL OBJECT, JOURNEY, WAR, MONEY, VALUABLE THING, BUILDING MATERIAL, CONTAINER, FRAGILITY, LENGHT, A LIVING BEING, MACHINE, and TARGET. Consequently, Table 4 demonstrates the range of elements construing the source domain and their numeral indicators within the empirical material. As shown in Table 5, the only category that displays statistical significance is that of POSSESSIONS. This phenomenon is conditioned by the fact that in the second speech, the notion of material objects is viewed as central in Volodymyr Zelenskyy's rhetoric.

The results on the source layer

Table 5.

	invasion	later
Feature	N	Percent	N	Percent	Chisqu	Signif.
SOURCE-TYPE	N=27	N=16
possessions	0	0.00%	2	12.50%	3.54	+
movements	2	7.41%	0	0.00%	1.24
material-object	0	0.00%	1	6.25%	1.73
journey	1	3.70%	0	0.00%	0.61
war	3	11.11%	2	12.50%	0.02
money	0	0.00%	1	6.25%	1.73
valuable-thing	0	0.00%	1	6.25%	1.73
	invasion	later
Feature	N	Percent	N	Percent	Chisqu	Signif.
SOURCE-TYPE	N=27	N=16
building-material	2	7.41%	1	6.25%	0.02
container-1	2	7.41%	0	0.00%	1.24
fragility	3	11.11%	1	6.25%	0.28
measure	2	7.41%	0	0.00%	1.24
a-living_being-2	10	37.04%	5	31.25%	0.15
machine	2	7.41%	1	6.25%	0.02
target	0	0.00%	1	6.25%	1.73

The source domain of the conceptual metaphors used in both speeches is represented by a wide spectrum of abstract and material phenomena. If we examine the contextual meaning of conceptual metaphors, the target domain reflects through abstract phenomenon, while the source domain realises through the material and physical concepts [Kovecses, 2002, pp. 25-28].

The content of the first speech dated 1 March 2022 draws upon the following aspects MOVEMENTS, JOURNEY, WAR, BUILDING MATERIAL, CONTAINER, FRAGILITY, LENGTH, A LIVING BEING, and MACHINE. Objectively, the source domain of that kind is deeply grounded in the sequence and consequences of the war because the President tends to emphasize the importance of Ukrainian lives and the urgent need for international support and standing. Consequently, A LIVING BEING is the most persuasive category within the speech layout with 37.04 %. FRAGILITY and WAR both rank second as human beings compared with tangible materials and the key topicality of the delivered speech. When combined, they amount to constitute 11.11% of the first speech.

Overall, multiple instances of personification are conveyed by means of two warring countries, particularly Russia and Ukraine. In terms of cognitive linguistics, the mapping technique is logically justified. To explain, the foundation of personification is based on the process of equation the country to a human using the process of overlapping. The remaining elements of the source domain such as MOVEMENTS, BUILDING MATERIAL, CONTAINER, LENGHT, and MACHINE consist of 7.41 % of the used constituencies of metaphors. Last but not least, JOURNEY is reflected less and only represents 3.70% of the overall number.

The source domain of the second speech dated 13 April 2022 is represented by the succeeding elements such as POSSESSIONS, MATERIAL OBJECT, WAR, MONEY, VALUABLE THING, BUILDING MATERIAL, FRAGILITY, A LIVING BEING, MACHINE, and TARGET. Statistics have revealed the use of the LIVING BEING category is central in many verbal performances and comprises almost 31.25 % of the applied target domain. POSSESSIONS and WAR rank in the second position with a percentage of 12.50%. Finally, the remaining categories represent 6.25 %: MATERIAL OBJECT, MONEY, VALUABLE THING, BUILDING MATERIAL, FRAGILITY, MACHINE, and TARGET. Examples of target and source domains are shown below:

...