THE USE OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN GREEK POLITICAL DISCOURSE - IKEE / AUTh

THE USE OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN GREEK
             POLITICAL DISCOURSE

BODY METAPHORS FOR THE GREEK ECONOMIC CRISIS

                             By
          KONSTANTIA SFAIROPOULOU

                          A Thesis
             submitted to the School of English
             Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
           in partial fulfilment of the requirements

                      for the degree of

                   MA in LINGUISTICS

       Thesis Supervisor: ANGELIKI ATHANASIADOU

                        Thessaloniki

                     FEBRUARY 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                           III

ABSTRACT                                                   IV

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION                                    1
    1.1. The chronicle of Greek debt crisis                 1
    1.2. Figurative language and political discourse        1

CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL
             BACKGROUND
    2.1 The discourse of crises                             3
    2.2. Political discourse and metaphor                   3
    2.3. Method                                             6
    2.4. Tools and Terminology                              7

CHAPTER 3 - ANALYZING THE FIGURATIVE FRAMING OF
            SEVEN CRISIS-RELATED CONCEPTS
    3.1 The economy                                        11
    3.2 The debt                                           17
    3.3 The measures, the agreement and its consequences   22
    3.4 The country                                        31
    3.5 The EU, the European allies and creditors          37
    3.6 Democracy                                          41
    3.7 The Greek society                                  46

CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUDING REMARKS                             52

REFERENCES                                                 55

APPENDIX                                                   59

                                                             I

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although the completion of a thesis could be considered the most demanding of the
requirements for the fulfilment of an MA degree, according to my personal
experience, it was quite the opposite. I could attribute this to my supervisor, Angeliki
Athanasiadou and I would like to thank her for many more reasons. First of all, for
showing confidence in me even though we had not met until I was accepted at the
Postgraduate Studies Program. Second, for successfully communicating her
enthusiasm for her field of expertise, Cognitive Linguistics. Third, for her patience
when I – especially at the beginning of this endeavor – needed guidance most.
Additionally, for offering me an excellent mixture of freedom and guidance, which
helped me avoid dead-ends and be successful in properly completing the present
thesis. Finally, on a more personal level, I would like to thank her for unfailingly
supporting me over my postgraduate studies, which was marked from the beginning
by several adversities.

Further, I would like to thank the department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
of the School of English for introducing me to linguistics as an undergraduate student
and stimulating my enthusiasm for this field of study. As for the members of the
academic staff that inspired me the most, I would like to mention and thank the now-
retired professor Marianthi Makri-Tsilipakou who helped me with her attitude and
quality as teacher to realize – at a very early stage of my studies as undergraduate
student – that I wished to pursue postgraduate studies in the field of Theoretical
Linguistics. I would like, then, to thank Dr. Angeliki Alvanoudi, Lecturer under
contract, for encouraging me with her generous comments, as well as the now-retired
assistant professor Elissabeth Mela for her excellent recommendations and pure
enthusiasm. Finally, I am really grateful to all my MA teachers for the knowledge
they have shared with me and, most importantly, to Dr. Valandis Bardzokas, member
of the Special Teaching Staff, and the associate professors Ioanna Topintzi and Eleni
Agathopoulou.

                                                                                      III

Abstract

The aim of the present thesis is to analyze the way crisis is conceptualized in Greece
by identifying the figurative language used in political debates hosted in the Greek
Parliament between 2010 and 2015 in the context of Greek economic crisis and
austerity programs imposed by the European Union and the institutions that financed
Greece to cope with its debt.

The analysis relies on a corpus of approximately 150,000 words comprising speeches
delivered in the Greek Parliament on the eve of sanctioning the First, Second and
Third Economic Adjustment Programs (Memoranda) for the provision of economic
assistance to Greece but also the approval of harsh austerity measures imposed by the
Greek governments in 2010, 2012 and 2015 respectively. More specifically it is
seated upon excerpts chosen from those speeches, where specific crisis-related issues
are non-literally treated by the people who discuss and analyze them. These authentic
excerpts have been translated from Greek. The original text can be accessed in the
relevant appendix. The figurative language employed was identified through intensive
reading of the minutes of five plenary sessions of the Greek Parliament retrieved
online from its official site [https://www.hellenicparliament.gr.].

The approach follows the Critical Metaphor Analysis (supported by Charteris-Black
2004, Chilton & Ilyin 1993, Musolff 2004/2016/2019 among others), which integrates
Cognitive Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis, since it employs the methods
of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) while analyzing the significance of
metaphors in the given discourse and, consequently, their role in conceptualizing the
Greek reality of the time. From this perspective, figurative language is seen as a
powerful conceptual and discourse strategy to frame economic, political and social
issues and to serve emotional and ideological purposes. The analysis revolves around
seven central issues: the debt, the economy, the measures / the agreement and its
consequences, the country, the EU / the European allies and creditors, democracy and
the society.
Through figurative language, the political and economic debate about those issues, at
the backdrop of former policies and in the face of current developments and decisions
critical for the country’s future as member of the EU, becomes effectively persuasive
and manipulative. The present study examines the linguistic devices employed by

                                                                                    IV

political agents in the discussions of the first, second and third memorandum and
effectively testifies diverse shifts in the way conceptual mechanisms are used over the
course of a five-year period. As regards the elaboration of the seven crisis-related
notions, one such shift follows the deterioration of the political and economic
situation, thus increasing/decreasing the emotional intensity conveyed through
figurative language. Another shift attested, allows to clearly discern two diametrically
opposing stances with respect to the political and economic situation relevant to that
period.
As a closing remark, the present study focuses on political discourse and adds further
evidence to the fact that ideological metaphors and figurative language, in general,
have ample persuasive force used in the justification/disapproval of the political and
economic consequences of crises as part of their potential to influence human
understanding of social and political life (Charteris-Black, 2004: 28). Whatever the
persuasive force of figurative language in political discourse, though, the analysis of
the ideological purposes it serves remains outside the scope of the present thesis.

                                                                                      V

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1. The chronicle of Greek debt crisis
The sovereign debt crisis affecting Greece – among a number of Central and Eastern
European countries, such as Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain – from 2010 to the
present began to emerge in 2007 in the United States, with the bursting of the housing
bubble and its domino effect on global financial institutions. The result was the 2008-
2012 global recession with consequences that had been unprecedented since the Great
Recession of the 1930s. Greece and the aforementioned EU countries, which were the
victims of the Euro-area bank crisis, struggled to repay pre-existing government debts
and were slow regarding growth compared to other eurozone members. It soon
became apparent that the crisis could undermine the viability of the currency union
but would also endanger the European integration project for the first time since the
signing of the Maastricht Treaty. To curtail the development of the multifaceted crisis,
the prescription prevailed by the Greek governments and international institutions was
the adoption of austerity measures (Karyotis & Gerodimos, 2015:1-2). Since 2010, the
Greek governments have three times sought and obtained financial assistance from
fellow member states, the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The
approach taken was the financial assistance - commonly known as “bailout packages”
- to be accompanied by draconian austerity programs, known as First, Second and
Third Economic Adjustment Programs or – more commonly – Memoranda
(hereinafter referred to as M1, M2 and M3). These were discussed and approved by
the Greek Parliament in May 2010, February 2012, and July 2015 respectively. The
minutes of the respective assembly discussions constitute the material of the present
thesis.

1.2 Figurative language and political discourse
Figurative language was thought of as being one aspect of what gives a text special
esthetic value. Compared to literal speech, figurative language attributes beauty to the
message conveyed, while literal description not only lacks in beauty but also conveys
a different message. Through years of study, it has been made clear that figurative
language, apart from being decorative, is important and pervasive because it draws
from cognitive material that shapes our thought (Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014: 1). The
study of figurative language under this perspective is considered one of the so-called

                                                                                      1

“islands” in the archipelago of Cognitive Linguistics (Geeraerts, 2006: 2). Since the
1980s the application of Cognitive Linguistics’ models in examining the nature of
figurative language has provided new understandings of figurative tropes.
Political discourse, similarly with literary texts, may have artistic intensions that could
result to the emotional involvement of the audience. Capturing the audience and
stirring emotion could be facilitated through metaphor, simile, irony, hyperbole, and
other figurative tropes or combinations of them. Political agents could resort to these
tropes not only to stir emotion but also to present policies, change minds or even take
stance on issues (Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014: 188). Cognitive research provided a
new understanding of how political discourse can be exploited in politics, and what
limitations there are for its use. Because it was made clear that language, apart from
being a means of expression and communication, has ample political force. It is a
powerful instrument for social cohesion or separation. It has the power not only to
evoke memories but also to change and shape them. Therefore it can change history
(Lakoff, 2009: 231).

                                                                                         2

CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 The discourse of crises
An economic crisis constitutes an imbalance, and an area of debate and argumentation
where a special political discourse is formed. In particular the political discourse of
crisis provides ways of crisis representation and, also, provides the reasons for
political agents to decide and act. In other words, political discourse in times of crisis
serves the function of creating the “narrative” for the conceptualization of crisis, of
getting people to see it in a certain way. It is a way a crisis is symbolized, the
ideological interpretation or “story” behind the crisis, which imposes itself and
determines the public perception of the crisis and what the outcome of the crisis will
be. This function is aided by the use of figurative language by political agents and
people in power. The rationale behind the use of such “figurative narratives” in times
of crises is to help people, on the one hand, make decisions about how to act in
response to crises and, on the other, justify strategies or policies which will hopefully
restore balance and rationality (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012: 2-6).
In the context of the Greek debt crisis, the approach adopted for the purposes of the
present work is the examining of the argumentation of political agents regarding
various crisis-related issues in order to approve or disapprove particular ways of
acting and, consequently, decisions that could be taken with regard to austerity
policies imposed on the country. The political discourse of the assembly sessions of
the Greek Parliament consists of arguments in favor or against a particular tentative
line of action. Which line prevails is thought to depend upon the relevant dominance
of the different “narratives” regarding the causes and significance of the crisis and
how it might be resolved. Figurative language (most prominently metaphor), as a
major constitutive element of “narrative” formation is extensively analyzed in Chapter
3.

2.2 Political discourse and metaphor
With the emergence of cognitive semantics approaches to metaphor and the growth of
critical discourse analysis (CDA) much research has been conducted into the use of
metaphor in various types of political discourse. Metaphors are seen as important
means of conceptualizing political issues and constructing world views. One reason
for the extent of research interest is that metaphor, by linguistically encoding one

                                                                                        3

concept in terms of another, establishes new relationships between phenomena and
stimulates new ways of thinking and acting (Charteris-Black, 2004: 47-48).
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980 developed the “cognitive linguistic view of
metaphor.” According to their conception, metaphor is a property of concepts, not
words. Its function is to better understand certain concepts; not to serve artistic or
rhetorical purposes (Kövecses, 2010: x). A metaphor establishes conceptual
correspondences (mappings) between a source and a target domain (A and B), in the
sense that constituent elements of B correspond to constituent elements of A
(CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN A is CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN B). The conceptual domain from
which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain is
called source domain, while the conceptual domain that is understood this way is the
target domain. Thus, metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in
terms of another (Kövecses, 2010: 4). We normally construe (conceive) a more
abstract domain (or concept) through a more physical domain (or concept). In the case
of the present thesis, the abstract concept is CRISIS with debt, economy, austerity
measures, etc. being its constituent elements.
The scope of the present work regarding metaphor analysis goes beyond the
identification of metaphor mappings and into identifying relationships between
metaphors of the same target domain. The aim is to trace a schema of development in
metaphorical realizations through the language used in each memorandum, i.e.
through time. For instance, when studying the target domain of “economy” from M1
through to M3, we realize that the mappings employed seem to follow the
deterioration of public finances. Thus, M1 starts with the conceptual metaphor
ECONOMY IS A BUILDING/MACHINE, which        in M2 evolves to ECONOMY IS A (SINKING)
BODY   and ends up in M3 with ECONOMY IS A CANCER PATIENT. A noticeable
development is the gradual embodiment of the source domains. That makes the target
domain more concrete and heightens the emotive impact on the target audience.
Making an abstract concept concrete can take the path of either objectification or
personification. In that sense, groups may be personified, which achieves
“compression to human scale”. This way it is made possible to interact directly with a
“nation”, when this is understood not only as a unit but as a “body” (see section 3.4
for the discussion of body politic). The abstract – concrete dichotomy may be difficult
to discern, in the sense that it is not always clear that metaphors are about
understanding the abstract in terms of the concrete. “Body” and “nation”, for instance,
                                                                                     4

as source and target domains, may both have concrete and abstract structure. Neither
target domains have to be abstract nor source domains need to be concrete. Creating a
metaphor, therefore, that best concretizes a relatively abstract concept may depend on
picking different frames (for frame-domain interaction see section 2.4) within the two
domains and building mappings between them (cf. Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014: 67).
In the analysis that follows, the Greek nation for the sake of compression is
personified via the conceptual metaphor NATION IS BODY, but for the sake of
concreteness and emotional impact the nation’s “body” is presented as being
susceptible to illness, suffering or requiring medical treatment. To that effect, the
MEDICAL CONDITIONS      frame is the one profiled within the “body” domain. Similarly,
in discussing “the pathogenies of the …economic system,” the metaphor ECONOMY IS
A BODY   evoked, profiles the MEDICAL CONDITIONS frame within the BODY domain
which makes the discussion about the impact of the financial crisis to have a more
affective appeal on the target audience.
The discussion of metaphors concretizing the abstract notion of “crisis” in the
political discourse of Greece is the major part of the present thesis. If we critically
examine those metaphors within the context of the speeches delivered in Parliament,
that can influence the value judgments that we make. However, the metaphors
analyzed are not approached with the intention to reveal the conflicting ideologies of
the text producers but as conceptual mechanisms employed for the representation of
the various facets of Greek debt crisis. My aim is to investigate how those
mechanisms develop and how the conceptualization of crisis shifts diachronically.
Another aspect that remains out of the scope of the present thesis is to investigate
whether the conceptualizations of crisis are culture-specific or not, since it exclusively
draws on the linguistic and conceptual devices used to describe crisis as it was
experienced in Greece and not in contrast with the respective devices employed by
other crisis-hit countries, such as Portugal, Spain or Ireland. However, it is
acknowledged, in line with the assumption shared by both Cultural and Cognitive
Linguistics, that political-ideological metaphors, such as those based on concepts
related to crisis, can be considered cognitive strategies by which specific communities
or cultures create their worldview, which they communicate through language (cf.
Soares da Silva et.al., 2017: 350).

                                                                                        5

2.3 Method
The approach adopted for the purposes of the present study integrates Critical
Discourse Analysis with Cognitive Linguistics’ tools, such as figurative language
analysis in the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, since it employs the
methods of CMT, while analyzing the significance of metaphors in the given
discourse and, consequently, their role in conceptualizing the Greek debt crisis. It is
an approach that bares similarities to the one described by Jonathan Charteris-Black
(2004: 41) as Critical Metaphor Analysis. The methodology of CMA (Charteris-
Black, 2004: 34-35) proceeds in three stages, identification, interpretation and
explanation. Metaphor identification is concerned with collecting examples of
linguistic metaphors used to talk about a topic, that is identifying whether they are
present in a text. Metaphor interpretation is concerned with interpersonal meaning,
that is identifying the type of social relations that are constructed through them. The
latter is achieved by generalizing from linguistic metaphors to the conceptual
metaphors they exemplify. Thirdly, metaphor explanation is concerned with the way
metaphors are interrelated and become coherent with reference to the situation in
which they occur. That is achieved by using the conceptual metaphors identified in
the previous stage to suggest understandings or thought patterns which construct or
constrain people’s beliefs and actions.

The approach adopted for the purposes of the present study - unlike CMA - does not
integrate the advantages of electronic corpora processing or the application of corpus
query tools to reach quantitative conclusions. It is purely qualitative even though the
corpus created was big enough to lent itself to drawing quantitative conclusions.

The corpus that was formed (approx. 150,000 words) comprises in total five
Parliamentary Assembly discussions related to the signing of the First (May 6, 2010),
Second (February 12, 2012) and Third Economic Adjustment Programs (the signing
of the third program was concluded in three assembly discussions, July 10,15 and 22,
2015). The texts were selected on the premise of their relevance to the economic crisis
at a time when the country’s future as member of the Eurozone had been highly
jeopardized.

The intensive reading that followed was enough to empirically identify figurative
language with reference to crisis as it was experienced in Greece. The identification of

                                                                                      6

the instances of figurative use of language was made possible by careful examination
of the context so as to check whether the context supported the classification of those
instances as metaphors, metonymies, similes, etc. As regards metaphor identification,
my intention is irrelevant with the degree of novelty or conventionality of those
metaphors but it is centered upon the intention of the speaker to decode the political
reality of crisis in Greece, to persuade or cause emotional impact by using language
non-literally. The instances of non-literal use of language with reference to economic
crisis by the speakers were isolated and organized under seven thematic units: the
debt, the economy, the measures / the agreement and its consequences, the country,
the EU / the European allies and creditors, democracy and the society, which are dealt
with in Chapter 3. The next step was to identify the conceptual mechanisms
employed, namely mappings between source and target domains (the crisis-related
concepts mentioned above), frames profiled within domains, and underlying image
schemas. The third step, which can be paralleled with the “interpretation” stage of
Critical Metaphor Analysis, is concerned with textual meaning. For the purposes of
this stage, I holistically processed and compared the conceptual mechanisms
employed in elaborating the seven crisis-related notions over the 2010-2015 period so
as to identify how the conceptualizations evolved through time and how these are
interrelated and become coherent with reference to the socio-economic situation of
Greek debt crisis. In that sense, by analyzing how the conceptualization of crisis
evolved through time, it was possible to identify the discourse function of figurative
language.

2.4 Tools and Terminology
One of the tools employed for the analysis of the material that follows is the concept
of frame, within the theoretical framework of Frame Semantics, as it was initially
advocated by Charles Fillmore (1982). The main tenet of Frame Semantics (Fillmore
1982, Fillmore 1985, Fillmore & Atkins 1992), is that linguistic entities such as
words, idioms, and grammatical constructions evoke frames in the mind of language
users. A frame is an abstract conceptual schema of a situation or event (Johnson &
Lenci, 2013: 13), which is activated when we hear a word, idiom or grammatical
construction, as the hearers’ “package of knowledge” that surrounds the respective
situation or event. A frame is normally very schematic, comprising no other details
apart from the entities participating in an situation or event and their relations. Thus
                                                                                      7

we have a “marriage” frame, a “party” frame, a “traffic” frame, etc. Everything we
know about these situations is coherently structured in conceptual frames.
All data concerning frame identification have been accessed online from FrameNet
website    (framenet    website;   http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/),   an   ongoing
Computational Linguistics’ project undertaken by the International Computer Science
Institute in Berkeley to recognize and document frame structures, namely the
computational implementation of frame semantics. In a collaborative publication by
several of the architects of the FrameNet project (Ruppenhofer et al 2010: 5) a
semantic frame is described as “a script-like conceptual structure that describes a
particular type of situation, object, or event and the participants and props involved
in it.” Semantic frames as well as the underlying framework of Frame Semantics have
been successfully employed for languages other than English (e.g. German, Spanish,
Japanese) in an attempt to build and connect lexicon fragments across languages
(Boas, 2009: 60).

With reference to frames, domains are much wider conceptual schemas to which
frames may belong. Unlike frames, which are specific knowledge structures
surrounding words, idioms or constructions, conceptual domains are very general
areas of conceptualization. Conceptual domains crosscut with frames thus allowing us
to link one frame to another (Radden & Dirven, 2007: 11). Domains are normally
structured by several frames. The latter may be interrelated once they share elements
and structure that can be activated through any one of these frames. When a linguistic
entity evokes a domain by evoking a specific frame, that frame has a special status
within the evoked domain, namely it is profiled as opposed to other structure in the
domain (Sullivan, 2009: 79)

A frame with more argumentative and narrative content and structure constitutes what
has been referred to as metaphor scenario. Its schematic nature is less pronounced
than that of a frame, i.e. scenarios are more elaborate than frames. They tell a mini-
story thus elaborating on the minimal schematic frame. The narrative nature of
scenarios also allow for evaluative elements, which make them useful for
argumentative exploitation in political discourses and policy planning (Musolff, 2019:
5). Metaphor scenarios present a discourse-based, culturally and historically mediated
version of a source domain (Musolff, 2016: 30). A well known metaphor scenario is

                                                                                     8

the one borrowing conceptual elements from the LOVE/MARRIAGE and FAMILY
domains for the conceptualization of the relations between EU member states but also
the Grexit speculations. These elements focus only on a few concepts from our
“common-sense” knowledge of the LOVE/MARRIAGE and FAMILY domains and
provide a system for the conceptualization of the EU as a whole (cf. section 3.5). That
partiality allows for evaluative arguments and judgments concerning EU politics
(Musolff, 2004: 14-15).

While frames and domains are cognitive linguistic tools which explain the cognitive
processes we use to organize our experiences and world knowledge into structured
concepts and language, framing (Burgers et al 2016, Charteris-Black 2004, Musolf
2019 to name a few) is an important concept in communication which can influence
and even shape public discourse. In framing theory, framing is the act of selecting
some aspects of a perceived reality, making them more salient, so as to promote a
particular problem definition, interpretation, evaluation and/or suggested treatment for
the item described (Burgers et al, 2016: 1). Lakoff and Wehling (as cited in Musolff,
2019) maintain that “factual” information in political context always needs to be
incorporated into a conceptual “frame” to become meaningful. Political facts in order
to be communicated need to be placed in frames that make them relevant. Their chief
example for the power of political framing is the conservative argument in favor of
“tax relief” which presupposes the notion that taxes are a metaphorical “burden” (cf.
section 3.2). Metaphorical framing, as Lakoff and Johnson indirectly admit in the last
chapter of “Metaphors we live by” (2003: 236), has strong ideological power, since
political and economic ideologies are framed in metaphorical terms.

Another term used in the analysis that follows is the level of metaphor generality
(Lakoff & Turner 1989, Kövecses 2010 et al). Conceptual metaphors can be specific-
level or generic-level ones. Specific-level metaphors employ specific-level concepts.
The schematic structures that underlie them (e.g. image schemas) are filled in a
detailed way. In the case of generic-level metaphors, the concepts employed are
generic-level. They are defined only by a small number of properties, i.e. they are
characterized by extremely skeletal structures (Kövecses, 2010: 45).

Finally, central position in the analysis of the figurative language present in the
discourse of Greek crisis holds the embodiment (Gibbs 2006, Johnson 1987, Kövecses

                                                                                      9

2010, Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 1999 among others) of the various crisis-related
concepts. That is to say, the BODY, as source domain, is repeatedly used for the
metaphoric conceptualization of the economy, the debt and the country (see sections
3.1., 3.2, and 3.4 respectively). As Kövecses points out (2010: 18), embodiment is a
central idea of the cognitive linguistic view of meaning, since a large portion of
metaphoric meaning derives from our experience from our own body. The
imaginative structures that mostly emerge from our embodied experience are
metaphor and image-schema. The VERTICALITY schema, for instance, is the abstract
schema whose structure we grasp out of thousands of perceptions and activities we
experience every day, and which, in turn, is applied so as to derive meaning from and
make sense of our experiences. Similarly, in metaphor, we project patterns from one
domain of experience (often the domain of BODY) in order to structure another
domain of a different kind. Through metaphor, we make use of patterns from our
physical experience to organize our more abstract understanding (Johnson, 1987: xiv-
xv).

In the following chapter the above Cognitive Linguistics’ tools are employed for the
discussion of seven crisis-related concepts that were widely discussed in the
deliberations of the Greek Parliament prior to the sanctioning of the three
Memoranda.

                                                                                  10

CHAPTER 3 - ANALYZING THE FIGURATIVE FRAMING OF SEVEN
CRISIS-RELATED CONCEPTS

3.1 The economy
Economics is a domain of experience involving entities such as money, transactions,
debt, etc. It sometimes functions as the source and sometimes as the target domain.
The present section discusses metaphors that elaborate the particular domain. These
can be dead or alive, sleeping or waking (Müller, 2008: 2; 178). The relation of
economics with metaphor is particularly interesting, because economics, as a soft
science, had to acquire credibility alongside other sciences that were considered more
noble and rational. Yet, from its beginning, economic thinking was largely
metaphorical. The language of economics abounds with dormant metaphors which
denote the scientific domains they were borrowed from, mostly physics and natural
science. (Resche, 2012: 82).
Unlike expert economic analysts, Greek politicians avoided the excessive use of
figurative tropes to represent economic concepts (loans, banks, banking system,
financial market, interest rates, countries viewed as economic entities, etc.) i.e. the
kind of language one can find in economic magazines (e.g. plunging markets, floating
exchange rates, etc.). “Debt” (and its “growth”) is the most widely discussed
economic parameter since it admittedly led the country deep into crisis. There are,
however, a few instances in the three memoranda, where the economy is explicitly
discussed.
In M1 it is recognized that the country’s “fiscal and economic collapse” is a fact or an
imminent danger. Here, the conceptualization of the condition economy is in is
metaphorically implemented by way of the “BUILDINGS” source domain, which is one
among the most commonly used source domains for “ECONOMIC SYSTEMS”
(Kövecses, 2010: 25).

(1)… the fiscal and economic collapse […] have shocked Greek society.

Since economic systems are complex abstract systems this mapping is generalized
into the overarching metaphor ABSTRACT COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE BUILDINGS.
Central knowledge of buildings, also, allows us to capture the mapping “failure of the
system is collapse of the building” found in (1) (Kövecses, 2010: 139).

                                                                                     11

According to Kövecses (2010: 159) the “complex systems” is a group of metaphors
comprising abstract target concepts, such as economic systems, political systems,
social organization, etc. Generally, the properties of function, stability, development,
and condition of abstract complex systems are primarily featured by four source
domains: machine, building, plant, and human body, respectively. Thus, the abstract
complex systems are mostly conceptualized metaphorically as MACHINES, BUILDINGS,
PLANTS   or BODIES. Therefore, in another point in M1, it is also deemed imperative
that the “machine of growth” be “set in motion” or that the “capitalist economy” be
“reheated” (2), since an important aspect of the good functioning of a machine is its
proper “heating”.

(2) The fiscal debt impedes reheating the capitalist economy.

These examples are instances of the COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE MACHINES metaphor.
One of the metaphorical entailments of the concept of “machine” as a source in
relation to abstract complex systems as a target is THE (EFFECTIVE) FUNCTIONING OF
AN ABSTRACT COMPLEX SYSTEM IS THE (EFFECTIVE) WORKING OF A MACHINE.
(Kövecses, 2010: 156).

Over   time, the machine metaphor has been made appropriate for economy through a
cultural process that followed the steps of the scientific evolution. Economy as a
discipline, similarly with others, gained its legitimacy as a science through metaphor,
that is to say, by modeling itself on disciplines that had already been established and
institutionalized. Economics, therefore, sought to emulate physics in the nineteenth
century, while neoclassical economists of the twentieth century even translated
economic variables into variables in the physics. Different metaphors prevail at
different times depending on how receptive the scientific community is to new
findings or how dependent on the former generation’s metaphors it is. ECONOMY IS A
MECHANISM is    a proto-metaphor dominating economic thought diachronically, which
surfaces in two different ways based on whether those who use it are satisfied with the
idea that this mechanism could work on its own or believe that the mechanism should
be repaired or maintained and its operation should be supervised (the tenants of
government intervention). For both these views, the machine metaphor is appropriate
(Resche, 2012: 84).

                                                                                     12

Metaphors also draw on image schematic experience. The following two examples (3-
4) are instances of two of the most frequent image schemas, JOURNEY and
CONTAINER.

(3) We commit ourselves to take the economy out of the mire

(4) [the government] leads the country into an economic abyss.

In these statements, what is actually being talked about is the position of the Greek
economy or, at least, the position it is found according to the speakers’ estimations.
Here, terms such as “take out” or “lead into” point to the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL
schema, which licenses the MEANS are PATHS metaphor. In the above examples the
conceptualization of the position of the economy as a state, which gives rise to the
metaphor STATES are CONTAINERS (mire, abyss) coexist with linguistic expressions of
the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL schema (take out, lead into). As Talmy proposes, the spatial
relation described via the combination of such terms may rest upon complex image
schemas (CONTAINER & SOURCE-PATH-GOAL), since each one of them separately is
inadequate to account for the conceptualization of motion from the interior to the
exterior of the “crisis” container and vice versa (Dodge & Lakoff, 2005: 65).

The metaphoric entailment of these two co-operating image-schemas is that economy
is something that can either float or sink. Choosing to represent the economy as a
BODY,   however, makes the discussion of financial crisis more comprehensible and
personal because we all understand how our bodies work. Representations of the
economy as body become increasingly frequent in M2 and M3, toward the end of this
five-year span. Once the economy is personified important consequences arise for the
political leadership. Just as a person in dangerous waters, it should be rescued
(…taken out of the mire…). Once it is objectified (a ship being driven into abyss),
human intervention (a rescue plan) is necessitated. “Bailout”, the term that was widely
used since the wake of the 2009 financial crisis may well have been influenced by
images of disaster: sailors bailing water out of sinking boats (Mooney & Evans, 2015:
56).

In M2, the speakers of the parliamentary assembly recognize the need for the
economy to be given “space to stand on its feet again” even though, due to over-
taxing of the private sector, the economy ended up standing “on two sick feet”, the

                                                                                    13

public and the private sector. They also recognize the “pathogenies” of the political
and economic system of the country” and contend that the economy has been driven
into “credit asphyxiation” (credit crunch) and has “shrunk” or “dried up” due to
liquidity shortage.

(5) …liquidity has shrunk…

(6) Cash flow has dried out and Greek economy needs fresh money…

We can see from these examples that the instability of water in cognitive terms, the
principles of its behavior and its saliency, becomes very useful in understanding
abstract economic concepts. Thus money, here, though being an abstract concept, can
be viewed as a liquid substance, possibly, inside a container, by way of the MONEY IS
LIQUID   metaphor, a type of ontological metaphor, and ECONOMY IS A CONTAINER.
(cf. Charteris-Black, 2004: 135-170). Greek has incorporated the above conceptual
metaphor in its lexicon, as is evidenced by the nominalized adjective [refsto=cash],
whose literal meaning is fluid, for the currency we use in our daily transactions.

As evidenced in the corpus, liquidity (cash flow), a property of water, is something
that can “dry out” or “shrink.” The MONEY IS LIQUID metaphor rests on several
conceptual mappings, one of which is LOSING MONEY IS LOSING LIQUID, which is the
case in (5) and (6). Thus, it may happen that the financial institution, company,
banking system or the economy itself, which is conceptualized as a container, is not
tightly closed, so a liquid may leak, escape from the container through an opening
usually by a fault, mistake or financial mismanagement (Silaški & Kilyeni, 2011: 68).

Both the government coalition and the opposition recognize in M2 that the economy
pays the price of former policies, so it is currently facing a life threatening situation.
(7) and (8) below are cases of the ECONOMY IS A [SICK] BODY metaphor.

(7) And now we certainly have a very serious problem with our fiscal, economic
viability.

(8) What could be the solution? […] Securing not only the economic viability but also
the entire viability of the country as a whole.

                                                                                       14

As expected, the human body plays a key role in the metaphoric elucidation of the
realities that make up the Greek crisis (debt, economy, society, measures, etc.). The
conceptual metaphor, underlying the predicating modifier construction of the Adj-N
type “economic viability,” is ECONOMY IS A BODY, where “viability” evokes the
source and “economic” the target domain. Usually, in these constructions, the
modified head evokes the source domain, just as “viability” evokes the BODY domain,
while the adjective “economic” evokes the target domain (cf. Sullivan, 2007: 89-90) .
The evocation, of the target domain is direct, while the source domain is indirectly
evoked by means of the LEVEL_OF_FORCE_RESISTANCE frame (framenet website;
http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/).

(9) …we realize the pathogenies of the political and economic system of our
country…

The ECONOMY IS A BODY metaphor is similarly evoked in (9). In this case, however,
it is seated upon a preposition phrase (PP) construction. The noun “pathogenies” is
responsible for indicating the source domain, while the noun “system,” part of the PP,
which is modified by the target domain adjective “economic,” indicates the target
domain (cf. Sullivan, 2007: 122-126). However, the evocation of the source domain is
indirect, in the sense that is achieved through the profiling of the MEDICAL
CONDITIONS frame    within the BODY domain (cf. Sullivan, 2007: 83; 126).

In M3 the representations of the economy as a body are also present, the difference
being that the focus now is more persistently turned to its health condition or even its
survival. To that respect, the issue discussed regarding the stabilization of the banking
system is the need for “bank/banking system resolution”. That is rendered in Greek as
[eksigiansi=sanitation], a derivative of [ygia=health], clearly part of the HEALTH-
ILLNESS domain.

(10) … bank resolution should be worked out first of all based on equities.

In M3 the conceptualization of economy as a “body” foregrounds the entailment
“economic wealth is physical health”. An image of economy that is quite tense in the
sense that it depicts an agonizing kind of suffering of the economic “body” is that of
“economic asphyxiation”. With reference to the ECONOMY IS A BODY metaphor, the
asphyxiation in (11) evokes the MONEY IS OXYGEN sub-metaphor and recognizes the

                                                                                      15

premise that money is a life saving element that prevents asphyxiation of the body
either inside a confined space or inside a container full of some kind of liquid.

(11) All this time we gave a strong fight for the best possible outcome in conditions of
unprecedented economic asphyxiation.

However, the strongest image pertaining to economy that appeared for the first time in
M3 discussions is the one presenting the economy as a “cancer patient”.

(12) In the remaining economic and social sectors, we can also remove several
carcinomas…

Metaphorically, cancer can “spread” or “proliferate”, be “diffused” or “removed”
surgically. In the present example the socio-economy disease seems severe but
operable.

Illness and health metaphors have a dubious reputation, especially those employed in
texts to present brutal extermination policies as effective healing methods. A
notorious use of those metaphors is their employment by the Nazis to legitimize the
holocaust. But also during the French Revolution illness/therapy metaphors were used
to legitimize the terror policy as a radical cure for society’s moral illnesses. More
than a hundred years earlier, Thomas Hobbes, in “Leviathan” analyzes the dangers
facing the state in terms of diseases of the body politic (see section 3.4 for the
discussion of body politic). Susan Sontag in her 1978 essay Illness as Metaphor
contends that illness is traditionally used to represent social corruption and injustice.
She also distinguishes what she calls master illness metaphors as the ones deriving
from “master-illnesses” such as tuberculosis and cancer. Cancer metaphors in
particular are classified by Sontag as genocidal, in the sense that they go beyond
expressing strong disapproval of social and political developments. In her view, they
even reject reformist remedies as pointless and promote “severe measures” as the final
resort to stop the rot (Musolff, 2003: 328).

Another figuration of the economy in M3 is based on a comparison realized as an
implicit simile, since it is not recognized by the presence of one of the comparison
markers, i.e. prepositions: like, as, or verbs: seem, look like, resemble, or adjectives:
similar to, some kind of, or conjunctions: as if, as though (their Greek equivalents).

                                                                                         16

(13) We do not accept any more in Greece the old political system of conflicting
interests, […] those who think they have an Eldorado-like economy…

The word order in the Greek text, which would be awkward to be kept in the English
translation, is “economy-Eldorado”. This order entitles me to classify the simile into
the N+N type of novel “covert” similes without surface markers. The simple
juxtaposition of nouns in novel sequences can be interpreted as similes by inferring a
semantic relation between the two nouns, namely the head resembles the modifier.
Things, however are slightly different in Greek, meaning that the sequence N (vehicle
= “Eldorado”) + N (topic = “economy”) is reversed. The reader should activate world
knowledge in order to identify properties of the “vehicle” that either match properties
of the “topic” or can be attributed to the “topic”. Thus, the central problem regarding
the interpretation of the present simile lies with the identification of the claimed
similarity, namely between “former economic practices based on conflicting interests”
on one hand and “a profitable place for making business” on the other (cf. Pierini,
2007: 36).
Concluding, the figurative language used to represent the state of the economy, as this
is viewed within the crisis framework, across the three memoranda discussions, could
be considered to follow an escalating profile. In M1, some of the most customary
economic metaphors, such as ECONOMY IS A BUILDING/MACHINE are used along
those seated upon the complex JOURNEY-CONTAINER image-schema. In M2, there is
clear reference to the threat against the very existence of the economy as an entity by
means of drowning or asphyxiation, while there is also reference - for the first time -
to economy as an ailing body. Finally, in M3, the economy is represented as suffering
from a terminal disease. Thus, through time, economy metaphors trace a path leading
from less to more intensely corporeal representations.

3.2 The debt
The debt is a salient concept within the domain of economy that is extensively treated
in parliamentary discussions as a topic in its own right. As an economic issue, the
disproportionate growth of the country’s national debt was the main reason why
Greece had to accept financial assistance by the IMF and European institutions but
also to approve harsh austerity packages accompanying it.

                                                                                    17

(14) This debt cannot be paid back unless the Greek people are exterminated just as
the native population of Latin America were exterminated by the Spanish conquerors.

(15) Dozens of countries around the world have, successfully, initiated such
processes [of debt restructuring] so that they take a breath.

There are only two references to debt in M1. In (14) “debt” is equated to a life-
threatening situation for the people it affects via a parallelism to the sufferings of
Native Americans by the Conquistadors. What is actually paralleled here are two
different kinds of extermination: causing economic disaster on the one hand and
launching genocide on the other. The conceptual feature shared by these two actions
is aggressiveness. This statement is an instance of a non-literal, creative simile that
establishes a connection between two situations by comparing them. The comparison
by means of simile in the present case is further supported by hyperbole. Namely, it
allows us to conceptualize various aspects of the economic crisis and the activities
necessitated by it as acts of war and aggression. However, the choice of simile as a
figurative trope has the implication of being weaker, less suggestive and less effective
than a (good) metaphor (Pierini, 2007: 23-24).

The figuration in (15) is focused on the agent of the predication (countries), which, in
this case, is embodied (…so that they take a breath.), thus, giving rise to the PEOPLE
FOR COUNTRIES    metonymy. The presupposition here is that debt is an asphyxiating
experience for the indebted countries (DEBT IS ASPHYXIATION). Therefore, being in
debt could actually be conceptualized as being trapped in an enclosed space (BEING IN
DEBT IS BEING IN A CONTAINER)     - a subordinate metaphor of the generic one STATES
ARE CONTAINERS -     where people are asphyxiating. In other words, debt leaves the
countries it affects breathless because it is construed as an asphyxiating experience.
The conceptualization of debt as suffocation is achieved here only indirectly through
reference to the notion of “debt restructuring” which allows countries to “breathe”
again.

The indirectness of metaphoricity in the case of (15) is made clear by analyzing the
reasoning it entails: PEOPLE FOR COUNTRIES metonymy, DEBT IS ASPHYXIATION
metaphor, therefore INDEBTED COUNTRIES ARE ASPHYXIATED PEOPLE. The targeted
metaphor, the end-point of the reasoning, presupposes in the case of the present
statement the acceptance of the previous two premises. Argumentation may act as a

                                                                                     18

bridge between metaphor, metonymy and reasoning, but metaphors may also be used
as building blocks in the construction of an argument (cf. Ervas et.al., 2018: 153).
Political discourse, as deliberative and argumentative in nature, frequently employs
conceptual metaphors in analogical reasoning such the above in order to justify
certain claims. Conceptual metaphors should, therefore, be conceived as the
justifications necessary to construct certain claims (Neagu, 2013: 2).

The common denominator in both these references to “debt” in the M1 parliamentary
discussion – which were the only ones found in the text – is indirectness. In (14) the
ACTIONS ARE EVENTS         metaphor conveyed (the action of paying back the debt equals
extermination) is made concrete only by means of a parallelism inspired by a different
cultural and historical context (…the same way the native population of Latin
America were exterminated by the Spanish conquerors). Also, this way the hyperbole
present in the statement becomes apparent, in that it clearly refers to a threat against
human existence. Similarly, in (15) there is only indirect reference to “debt” via the
concept of “debt restructuring.” Also, the INDEBTED COUNTRIES ARE ASPHYXIATED
PEOPLE   metaphor conveyed is the end-target of an entire reasoning including two
previous steps. This indirectness as regards the intention of the speakers to address the
debt problem could be associated with a milder stance that had been adopted by
politicians toward debt during the discussions for the First Economic Adjustment
Program. It remains to be seen whether, when discussing the other two bailout
packages, references to debt became more tense and emotionally charged.

In M2 discussions, a widespread discomfort about the alarming increase of the
country’s debt was beginning to become apparent in the language of the speakers. The
notion of sustainability is frequently met in the corpus mostly in conjunction with
debt since it constitutes a formal term in business and financing. It is also used with
reference to the country, the solution that needs to be found to the country’s economic
problems, growth, the Greek society, etc. The Greek noun [viosimotita], however,
deriving from the noun vios = life, renders “viability” the closest English translation.
In the vast majority of cases, speakers are anxious about the viability of the debt:

(16) The public debt needs to become viable.

(17) Without ensuring the viability of the debt of Greece we are driven …. right away
into disorderly default.

                                                                                       19

Debt is not only discussed as a physical entity but also as a “thing” with distinct
natural features (DEBT IS A THING). It can increase in terms of volume, or it can be
heaped up. By speaking of “debt” as a thing, unlike the conceptualization previously
discussed in conjunction with debt viability, one accepts that it cannot have agency,
since objects and things are generally inert.

(18) Because debt expansion is actually an accounting act.

(19) … additional fiscal measures […] for the achievement of primary surplus so as to
cease the mounting of debt.

(19) is an instance of a very productive image schema as regards debt, UP-DOWN,
which entitles the DEBT IS A MOUNTAIN metaphor. Within this schema debt “mounts”.
While the metaphor GOOD IS UP usually licensed by the above image schema might be
true for “saving”, in the case of debt BAD IS UP (Soares da Silva et.al., 2017: 356-
359).

The debt is also construed as a kind of “explosive”, a “rocket” or a “burden”:

(20) [the crisis] ignites the debt and causes trouble.

(21) [the memorandum] aggravated recession and caused the debt to soar.

(22) […] to relieve the Greek people from the burden of 100 billion of public debt,
from the burden of forty-seven percentage units of Gross Domestic Product owed.

The metaphor DEBT IS BURDEN is image schematic in nature, namely it is based on the
image schema of FORCE, which is very productive in political discourse. The FORCE
image schema is closely interconnected to PATH in the sense that it is dependent on it.
By looking at the whole picture of crisis as a “long and painful path” that had to be
crossed in order for the country to reach the goals of deficit and debt reduction as it
was agreed with the Troika, the debt can be construed as the load that had to be
hauled along the path of austerity (Soares da Silva, 2016: 90).

There is, however, a more cultural perspective that links the concepts of “burden” and
“debt” with that of sin and shows the path through which we historically came to the
conceptualization of debt as “burden” (DEBT IS BURDEN). The most common
metaphor for sin in Bible is that of a weight an individual must carry (SIN IS BURDEN).

                                                                                    20

In Hebrew Bible, sin is viewed as a debt that had to be repaid or remitted (SIN IS
DEBT).   This relation becomes apparent as we notice the following line from the
original Greek form of the “Our Father”: “Forgive us our debts, just as we forgive our
debtors”. The idea of “sin as debt” originally appears in the latest stratum of the Old
Testament. That metaphor subsequently replaced the one of “sin as a burden” and it
slowly worked its way into early Jewish and Christian thought (Anderson, 2009: x). It
is worth remembering that in the Aramaic language the words for sin and debt are
used interchangeably. If we come back to the Greek debt problem and the solution
that was being sought over the years back to which the present corpus dates, Northern
European countries advocated austerity as the “atonement” for the profligacy and
corruption that led to the economic disequilibrium and the subsequent economic crisis
(Primo Braga, 2015: 2). Consequently, the issue of debt repayment acquires a moral
sense, the obligation of indebted countries to be redeemed for their over-borrowing
and over-spending, in the spirit of the conceptual metaphor MORAL OBLIGATION IS
FINANCIAL DEBT.    It is worth adding that although debt is the target domain in DEBT IS
BURDEN, it   is also the source in the case of MORAL OBLIGATION IS FINANCIAL DEBT.

Different conceptualizations of debt emerge in M3, fraught with dramatic tension,
which illustrate a linguistic escalation. The discussion about debt sustainability in
2015 was more relevant than ever, as evidenced by the many references to the “non-
viable” debt.

(23) …the agreement […] includes […] the explicit restructuring commitment in
order for the debt to become viable.

References to “debt” like this show that people think of it as an inanimate physical
object that can be manipulated, since it can be “restructured.” It is also evident from
(23) that debt has a corporeal nature, as well. In that sense (23) is a case of a cluster of
metaphors that brings together a structural and an ontological metaphor, since “debt”
is conceived of as a structure that can be manipulated to be given a new shape. Thus,
it can be extended, erased or restructured (DEBT IS A STRUCTURE). But it is also
conceived of as something more corporeal (DEBT IS A PERSON) and, therefore
susceptible to bodily harm, physical discomfort or even “death”, if it becomes non-
viable (Sifaki & Mooney, 2015: 210).” So people think of “debt” as a thing but also as
a person. Finally, the viability of the debt (DEBT IS A PERSON) depends on its

                                                                                         21

restructuring (DEBT IS A STRUCTURE), so the metaphors of this cluster are connected
through a causal relation. Failure to restructure one’s debt results in failure to keep it
viable.
The discussion about debt sustainability in M3 continues with more intense
conceptualizations. Thus, debt is for the first time conceptualized as “black hole”,
“strangling noose around the neck of Greece”, “vise” (clamp) or “enslaving
instrument.”

(24) … for five years now, [the debt] has been used as an enslaving instrument of the
people by forces acting inside Europe.

In the last instance, being indebted to other European Union member countries is
equated to debt-bondage (INDEBTEDNESS IS SLAVERY). Debt-bondage is a culturally
entrenched idea of long history. In Bible, debt-bondage is described as the situation
when one’s failure to repay their debt resulted in their or their family being held in
bondage by one creditor (Bromiley, 1995: 542). As a practice, debt-bondage has not
been eliminated yet.

The conceptualization of debt across the three Memoranda, over the five-year period
under consideration, allows us to discern an escalation of the rhetorical means used,
ranging from more indirect references to debt to references that bring out the physical
damage inflicted upon people who suffer the consequences of “being in debt.” In M1,
the two references to “debt” are equally indirect. In M2 the “debt” is construed both
as a THING that can be manipulated and as a PERSON whose existence is undermined,
while the most prevalent construal is that of debt as “burden”. In M3 the ontological
metaphors of “debt” become more frequent, while debt becomes more systematically
associated to bodily harm and suffering.

3.3 The measures, the agreement and its consequences
The way politicians talk about the state of Greek economy in a period of crisis and the
debt as a concept of the domain of finance is diversified from memorandum to
memorandum with the figurative language seemingly becoming increasingly intense,
ontological and centered upon the domain of body. What is unique, however, as
regards the discussion of harsh austerity policies and how these are experienced by
Greek society is that their figurative representation gradually loses part of its original

                                                                                       22