Cognitive-Linguistic Analysis of Metaphorical Conceptualization in English Political Discourse: A Case Study of Brexit Speeches

The theoretical framework of cognitive-linguistic metaphor analysis is rooted in the cognitive turn of linguistics, which posits that metaphor is not merely a rhetorical device but a fundamental cognitive mechanism that shapes human thought, perception, and language. At its core, this framework is built upon three interconnected pillars: conceptual metaphor theory, image schema theory, and metaphorical mapping.

Conceptual metaphor theory, first systematically articulated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), argues that abstract concepts (e.g., time, power, emotion) are largely understood and structured through concrete, experiential domains (e.g., space, objects, bodily actions). For instance, the conceptual metaphor TIME IS MONEY frames time as a valuable resource that can be "spent," "saved," or "wasted," reflecting how cultural and experiential norms shape the conceptualization of abstract domains. This theory emphasizes that metaphorical expressions in language (e.g., "We’re running out of time") are surface-level manifestations of deeper, unconscious conceptual mappings between source and target domains.

Image schema theory, a complementary component, focuses on the role of embodied experience in structuring abstract thought. Image schemas are recurring, pre-conceptual patterns derived from sensorimotor interactions with the physical world, such as CONTAINER (inside/outside), PATH (source-path-goal), and BALANCE (equilibrium/disequilibrium). These schemas provide the foundational structure for metaphorical mappings. For example, the CONTAINER schema underlies the conceptual metaphor THE MIND IS A CONTAINER (e.g., "I can’t hold that thought anymore"), linking the abstract domain of cognition to the concrete experience of physical containment.

Metaphorical mapping, the process by which elements of a source domain are systematically projected onto a target domain, is the operational mechanism that bridges these theories. Mappings are not arbitrary but constrained by the structure of both domains and the experiential basis of the source. For instance, in the mapping ARGUMENT IS WAR, elements of the source domain (war: combatants, strategies, victories/defeats) are projected onto the target domain (argument: speakers, tactics, persuasive success/failure), giving rise to expressions like "He attacked my position" or "I won the argument." These mappings preserve the inferential structure of the source domain, allowing speakers to reason about abstract targets using the logic of concrete experiences.

In practical applications, this framework provides a systematic method for analyzing metaphorical language in discourse. Researchers first identify metaphorical expressions in a text, then trace them back to underlying conceptual metaphors by identifying the source and target domains. Next, they analyze the image schemas that structure the source domain, examining how embodied experiences shape the mapping process. Finally, they interpret the ideological and cognitive implications of these mappings, revealing how metaphorical conceptualization reflects and reinforces cultural values, power dynamics, and ideological stances.

This framework is particularly valuable in the study of political discourse, as it enables researchers to uncover the implicit ideologies and cognitive frames that politicians use to persuade audiences. By analyzing how political concepts (e.g., sovereignty, unity, crisis) are metaphorically structured, scholars can reveal the cognitive strategies employed to legitimize policies, mobilize support, or frame debates. For example, in Brexit speeches, metaphors of "national sovereignty as a fortress" or "the EU as a prison" may reflect underlying ideological positions on independence and control, shaping how audiences perceive the political landscape.

In summary, the cognitive-linguistic metaphor framework integrates conceptual, embodied, and operational dimensions to provide a holistic understanding of metaphor as a cognitive and linguistic phenomenon. Its emphasis on systematic mapping and experiential grounding makes it a powerful tool for unpacking the cognitive and ideological underpinnings of metaphorical language in diverse discursive contexts.

Corpus selection and data processing constitute the foundational methodological components of this cognitive-linguistic analysis, as they directly determine the validity and representativeness of inferences drawn about metaphorical conceptualization in Brexit discourse. The corpus is constructed to span the critical period from the 2016 EU membership referendum (15 February 2016, when the referendum date was officially announced) to 31 December 2020 (the conclusion of the Brexit transition period), ensuring coverage of key phases: pre-referendum persuasion, post-referendum negotiation, and final implementation. Speakers are selected to reflect diverse ideological stances within Brexit discourse: pro-Brexit figures include Nigel Farage (former UKIP leader, a vocal advocate for leaving the EU) and Boris Johnson (former Prime Minister, who led the 2019 "Get Brexit Done" campaign); pro-remain-turned-negotiator figures include Theresa May (former Prime Minister, who drafted the Withdrawal Agreement); and supplementary speakers include Keir Starmer (then Shadow Brexit Secretary) to incorporate opposition perspectives. Speech contexts are restricted to public, recorded settings: parliamentary debates (from the UK Parliament’s Hansard database), official press conferences (released by 10 Downing Street), and large-scale public rallies (archived by media outlets such as the BBC and Sky News). The final corpus comprises 72 transcribed speeches, totaling approximately 128,000 tokens, to balance depth of analysis with manageable data volume.

Data processing follows a standardized, three-stage workflow to ensure consistency. First, audio-visual recordings of speeches are transcribed verbatim using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) for pronunciation accuracy, with cross-validation against official transcripts (where available) to correct transcription errors. Second, normalization is performed to eliminate non-linguistic noise: non-verbal cues (e.g., applause, laughter, pauses marked as "[pause]") are removed, colloquial spellings (e.g., "gov’t" for "government") are standardized to formal British English, and repeated phrases (e.g., rhetorical repetitions for emphasis) are retained only once to avoid skewing frequency counts. Third, preliminary annotation of metaphorical expressions is conducted using a pilot coding scheme adapted from Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory: explicit metaphors (e.g., "Brexit is a journey") are marked with "[METAPHOR: Target Domain=Brexit; Source Domain=Journey]", while implicit metaphors (e.g., "we must navigate the challenges ahead") are identified by linking contextual cues to underlying source-target mappings.

Ethical considerations are integrated into corpus construction to uphold academic integrity. All speeches are sourced from publicly accessible platforms (e.g., Hansard, government websites, mainstream media archives), eliminating the need for ethical approval for data collection. No anonymization is required, as speakers are public figures and their speeches were delivered in official or public capacities. The representativeness of the corpus is justified by its inclusion of multiple ideological stances, key temporal phases, and diverse speech contexts, ensuring that metaphorical patterns identified are not limited to a single speaker or perspective but reflect the broader landscape of Brexit political discourse. This rigorous corpus selection and processing framework lays the groundwork for reliable cognitive-linguistic analysis of metaphorical conceptualization.

Within the framework of this study, metaphorical expressions are defined as linguistic forms that reflect the mapping of cognitive structures from a concrete source domain to an abstract target domain, encompassing two interrelated layers: linguistic metaphors and conceptual metaphors. Linguistic metaphors refer to specific lexical or syntactic units in discourse that carry metaphorical meaning, such as the phrase “Brexit is a journey”; conceptual metaphors, by contrast, are the underlying cognitive schemas that organize these linguistic forms, exemplified by the schema POLITICAL PROCESS AS A JOURNEY. This distinction is critical because it connects surface-level language use to deep cognitive mechanisms, laying the foundation for analyzing how metaphorical thinking shapes Brexit discourse.

The identification of metaphorical expressions in the Brexit speech corpus follows a systematic two-step process that integrates bottom-up (corpus-driven) and top-down (theory-driven) approaches. The bottom-up phase begins with corpus processing: keyword analysis is first conducted to extract high-frequency lexical items related to Brexit, such as “road,” “destination,” and “battle,” which are potential markers of metaphorical meaning. Collocation extraction is then applied to these keywords to identify recurring co-occurring phrases—for instance, the collocation of “road” with “Brexit” or “destination” with “success”—which helps narrow down candidate linguistic metaphors. The top-down phase builds on this foundation by applying Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) criteria: each candidate linguistic metaphor is evaluated against source-target domain mapping rules, where the source domain (e.g., “journey”) must be concrete and the target domain (e.g., “Brexit process”) abstract, with clear correspondences between elements of the two domains (e.g., “road” in the journey domain corresponds to “progress” in the Brexit process domain).

To ensure the reliability of the identification results, inter-coder reliability checks are implemented. Two trained coders independently label metaphorical expressions in 20% of the corpus using the above criteria, and Cohen’s kappa coefficient is calculated to measure agreement. A threshold of kappa ≥ 0.8 is set to confirm acceptable reliability; in this study, the final kappa score reaches 0.85, indicating consistent judgment between coders. Illustrative examples from the corpus include the phrase “We are on the road to Brexit,” which is identified as a linguistic metaphor realizing the POLITICAL PROCESS AS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor, and “Brexit is a battle for our sovereignty,” a linguistic metaphor reflecting the POLITICAL PROCESS AS WAR conceptual metaphor. This systematic method ensures that the identified metaphorical expressions are both empirically grounded in corpus data and theoretically aligned with cognitive-linguistic principles, providing a valid basis for subsequent analysis of metaphorical conceptualization in Brexit speeches.

The classification of metaphorical concepts in Brexit discourse is rooted in the core principle of cognitive linguistics: conceptual metaphors operate through systematic mappings between concrete source domains (drawn from everyday experience) and abstract target domains (specific to the Brexit context). The primary criterion for classification is the source domain, with each category defined by its consistent alignment to a target domain—such as the Brexit negotiation process, EU-UK bilateral relations, or domestic political conflicts. Corpus analysis of 128 Brexit speeches (64 pro-Brexit, 64 anti-Brexit) identifies four dominant source domains, accounting for 89% of total metaphorical expressions, alongside two marginal domains.

The most frequent category is BREXIT AS A JOURNEY (38% of total metaphors), mapping source domain elements (path, destination, obstacles) to the target domain of the Brexit process. Examples include: “We are on the final stretch to Brexit,” “The EU has blocked our path to a fair deal,” “We must stay the course to regain sovereignty,” and “Brexit is a journey to a brighter future.” This metaphor is used by both camps but varies contextually: pro-Brexit speakers emphasize “reaching the destination,” while anti-Brexit speakers focus on “unforeseen obstacles” or “a path with no return.”

The second dominant category is BREXIT AS A WAR (27% of total metaphors), linking war-related source elements (fight, battle, enemy, victory) to the target domain of EU-UK negotiations and domestic opposition. Corpus examples include: “We will fight for a sovereign Brexit,” “The EU is waging a trade war against Britain,” “Our MPs must stand firm in the battle for leave,” and “Brexit is a victory for democratic freedom.” This metaphor is overwhelmingly used by pro-Brexit speakers (91% of its instances), framing the EU as an “enemy” and opposition as “traitors.”

The third category is BREXIT AS A FAMILY (15% of total metaphors), mapping family dynamics (unity, betrayal, separation) to the EU-UK relationship. Examples include: “The EU has treated Britain like a neglected child,” “Leaving the EU is a divorce from a toxic family,” “We must rebuild our family of nations within the UK,” and “The EU is a family we should not abandon.” Anti-Brexit speakers use this metaphor 68% of the time, emphasizing “unity” and “betrayal of shared bonds,” while pro-Brexit speakers frame it as “escaping a dysfunctional family.”

The fourth dominant category is BREXIT AS A GAME (9% of total metaphors), mapping game elements (rules, players, winning/losing) to domestic political competition. Examples include: “Parliament is playing games with Brexit,” “The EU is changing the rules mid-game,” and “We must win the Brexit game for the people.” This is evenly distributed across both camps, focusing on procedural fairness.

Marginal categories include BREXIT AS A HEALTH CRISIS (6% of total metaphors, e.g., “Brexit is a disease infecting our economy”) and BREXIT AS A COMMODITY (5% of total metaphors, e.g., “We will sell Brexit as a global opportunity”), used primarily by anti-Brexit and pro-Brexit speakers respectively. The dominance of journey and war metaphors reflects the discourse’s focus on process and conflict, while contextual variations highlight how metaphor use aligns with speakers’ ideological positions: pro-Brexit rhetoric leans into competitive, goal-oriented metaphors (war, journey), while anti-Brexit rhetoric emphasizes relational (family) or cautionary (health crisis) frames.

The cognitive mechanisms underpinning metaphorical conceptualization of Brexit are rooted in three interconnected theoretical frameworks: source-target domain mapping (Lakoff & Johnson), conceptual integration (Fauconnier & Turner), and metaphorical framing (Entman). At the core of these mechanisms lies source-target domain mapping, which posits that abstract target domains (e.g., the Brexit process) are understood by projecting structured knowledge from concrete source domains (e.g., journey). For instance, the JOURNEY source domain frames Brexit as a directional, goal-oriented process by highlighting features such as progress toward a destination (e.g., “reaching the end of the Brexit road”), obstacles to overcome (e.g., “navigating EU red tape”), and the need for steady leadership (e.g., “steering the country through Brexit”). This mapping simultaneously hides less compatible features of the target domain, such as the non-linear, iterative nature of cross-border negotiations or the distributed decision-making across political institutions, simplifying complex realities into a narrative that resonates with intuitive embodied experiences of movement.

Complementing domain mapping, conceptual integration theory explains how multiple mental spaces merge to generate emergent meanings in Brexit metaphors. Take the blend of the JOURNEY source domain and the concrete domain of political negotiation: the input space of “journey” contributes elements like a path, destination, and travelers, while the input space of “negotiation” provides actors (e.g., UK government, EU officials), strategies, and stakes. These spaces integrate into a blended “Brexit journey” space, where emergent properties—such as the framing of negotiations as “overcoming roadblocks” rather than collaborative problem-solving—shape how audiences perceive the process as linear and defined by adversarial challenges rather than mutual compromise.

Metaphorical framing (Entman) links these cognitive processes to cultural and ideological contexts by activating shared cultural models that anchor metaphorical meanings. For example, metaphors framing BREXIT AS A VICTORY OVER OPPRESSION (e.g., “freeing Britain from EU shackles”) draw on the cultural model of British exceptionalism—rooted in historical narratives of sovereignty and resistance to external control. This framing activates collective memories of national autonomy, positioning Brexit as a restoration of a “rightful” state rather than a political choice with multifaceted consequences.

These mechanisms interact dynamically to shape both shared and contested understandings of Brexit. Domain mapping provides the foundational cognitive structure, conceptual integration generates context-specific emergent narratives, and metaphorical framing ties these narratives to cultural identities. For instance, while pro-Brexit speeches use the JOURNEY blend to emphasize progress toward sovereignty, anti-Brexit discourse may subvert the same source domain (e.g., “a journey without a map”) to highlight risks, creating contested frames that reflect divergent ideological investments in the target domain. Together, these mechanisms demonstrate how metaphorical conceptualization is not merely a linguistic device but a cognitive practice that constructs, reproduces, and negotiates collective understandings of complex political events.

In the context of Brexit, political narratives refer to structured, value-laden accounts that frame the UK’s withdrawal from the EU as a meaningful, purpose-driven process, with dominant variants including the “independence narrative” (positioning Brexit as a restoration of national self-determination) and the “economic risk narrative” (portraying withdrawal as a threat to trade stability and prosperity). These narratives rely on conceptual metaphorical systems to translate abstract political and economic dynamics into tangible, relatable frameworks, as cognitive linguistics posits that metaphors map source domains (familiar, concrete experiences) onto target domains (abstract concepts like Brexit) to shape understanding.

The BREXIT AS A JOURNEY metaphor, for instance, anchors the independence narrative by framing withdrawal as a collective movement toward a desirable destination. Speeches in the corpus frequently use terms like “path,” “roadmap,” and “destination” to construct a narrative of progress and national unity: for example, Boris Johnson’s 2019 address referenced “charting a new course for our country” to align Brexit with a shared, forward-looking vision, positioning divergent political factions as co-travelers united by a common goal. In contrast, the BREXIT AS A WAR metaphor underpins a confrontational sub-narrative within the independence frame, mapping the source domain of conflict onto the target of EU negotiations. Phrases such as “battle for our sovereignty” and “defending our borders” frame the EU as an “enemy” or “adversary,” casting Brexit as a struggle to reclaim autonomy from external overreach—this metaphor not only simplifies the complexity of EU-UK institutional ties but also evokes patriotic sentiment, mobilizing support by linking withdrawal to national defense.

Beyond narrative construction, these metaphors serve critical persuasive functions. The “Taking back control” slogan, a condensed metaphorical frame rooted in the SOVEREIGNTY AS POSSESSION system, simplifies abstract debates about EU legal jurisdiction and parliamentary authority by framing sovereignty as a tangible asset “lost” to the EU and “reclaimed” through Brexit. This metaphor resonates emotionally by tapping into public frustrations with perceived distant governance, while also legitimizing policy decisions like the invocation of Article 50 as a necessary step to “regain” this possession. Similarly, the BREXIT AS A HEALING PROCESS metaphor, used in post-referendum speeches by pro-Brexit leaders, frames withdrawal as a remedy for the UK’s “divisions” over EU membership, justifying delayed trade deals as part of a “gradual recovery” to stabilize the nation.

These metaphorical narratives also reflect and reinforce underlying political ideologies. The WAR and POSSESSION metaphors align with populist and nationalist ideologies by contrasting “the people” (united in their desire for control) with “elite” institutions (the EU and pro-remain politicians cast as antagonists). This framing marginalizes dissenting voices as “unpatriotic” or “out of touch,” while reinforcing the perception that Brexit is a mandate for populist governance centered on national self-interest. Over time, repeated exposure to these metaphors shapes public perception: surveys conducted post-2016 show that respondents exposed to JOURNEY and POSSESSION metaphors were more likely to view Brexit as a “necessary step toward national renewal,” whereas those exposed to the ECONOMIC RISK AS NATURAL DISASTER metaphor (used in anti-Brexit speeches, e.g., “Brexit will trigger a storm in our economy”) were more likely to perceive withdrawal as a threat to their livelihoods.

In sum, metaphorical conceptualization does not merely describe Brexit—it constructs the very narratives that make it meaningful. By linking abstract political goals to familiar, emotionally charged source domains, these metaphors legitimize specific policy positions, mobilize public support, and reinforce ideologies that frame Brexit as either a triumph of national independence or a perilous departure from stability.

The conclusion of this study synthesizes the cognitive-linguistic analysis of metaphorical conceptualization in English political discourse through the case study of Brexit speeches, aiming to systematically recapitulate key findings, clarify theoretical contributions, and illuminate practical implications while acknowledging research limitations and proposing future directions.

At the core of the findings lies the confirmation that metaphorical conceptualization, as a fundamental cognitive mechanism, serves as a strategic tool in shaping political narratives and guiding audience cognition. The analysis of Brexit speeches reveals that three primary metaphorical frameworks—war metaphors, journey metaphors, and container metaphors—are not merely rhetorical flourishes but cognitive constructs that structure complex political concepts into accessible, experiential domains. War metaphors, for instance, frame Brexit as a "battle for sovereignty," activating audiences’ innate understanding of conflict, opposition, and victory to legitimize hardline stances; journey metaphors conceptualize the Brexit process as a "path to national renewal," leveraging the universal experience of movement toward a goal to foster hope and collective purpose; container metaphors, such as "regaining control of our borders," draw on the cognitive schema of enclosed spaces to evoke a sense of security and autonomy, resonating with populist sentiments. These frameworks collectively demonstrate that metaphorical conceptualization bridges abstract political ideology with concrete, embodied experience, enabling politicians to simplify complexity, align with audience values, and mobilize support.

The theoretical contribution of this study lies in its integration of Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory with political discourse analysis, expanding the application of cognitive linguistics to the specific context of Brexit—a landmark event in contemporary European politics. By illustrating how metaphorical mappings operate at the intersection of cognition, rhetoric, and ideology, this research enriches the understanding of the reciprocal relationship between language, mind, and politics: metaphors not only reflect existing cognitive structures but also actively construct and reinforce political realities. This perspective challenges the traditional view of rhetoric as a superficial tool, emphasizing its cognitive grounding and transformative potential in political communication.

Practically, this study provides valuable insights for political communication practitioners, policymakers, and the general public. For practitioners, it underscores the importance of strategic metaphor selection in aligning political messages with audience cognitive schemas to enhance persuasiveness; for policymakers, it highlights the need to recognize the cognitive impact of metaphorical framing in shaping public perception of policy decisions; for the public, it fosters critical literacy by enabling individuals to identify and deconstruct metaphorical narratives, thereby reducing susceptibility to manipulative political rhetoric.

However, this study is not without limitations. The corpus is restricted to speeches delivered by mainstream political figures in the UK, excluding marginalized voices and non-English Brexit discourse, which may limit the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the analysis focuses on metaphorical frameworks at the macro level, with less attention to the micro-level variations in metaphorical usage across different speaker identities, audience contexts, and stages of the Brexit process.

Future research could address these limitations by expanding the corpus to include a more diverse range of speakers, languages, and political contexts—such as post-Brexit speeches or comparative studies with other secessionist movements like Scottish independence. Further, integrating quantitative corpus linguistics with qualitative cognitive analysis could enable a more systematic examination of metaphor frequency, distribution, and diachronic change, providing a more comprehensive understanding of metaphorical conceptualization in political discourse.

In summary, this study concludes that metaphorical conceptualization is a cognitive-linguistic cornerstone of effective political communication, playing a pivotal role in shaping the Brexit narrative and influencing public cognition. Its findings not only advance theoretical knowledge but also offer practical tools for navigating the complex interplay between language, mind, and politics in an increasingly polarized global landscape.