Metaphor as Invective in the Genre of Internet Commentary: A Focus on German Political Discourse

This article presents the results of a linguo-stylistic analysis of a Germanlanguage commentary within the context of public political internet discourse. The analysis aims to identify distinctive features specific to this genre. Empirical material consists of over 200 comments on internet posts made by the German political party “Alternative for Germany,” selected through random sampling. The study applies both general scientific and linguistic methods, such as discourse analysis and contextual analysis. The relevance of this chosen topic is justified by the need for research in the field of internet linguistics, particularly in addressing genre-related issues. The goal is to determine, identify, and describe the characteristic features of commentary as an internet text. The article thoroughly examines the approaches taken by German linguists to define the concept of “invective,” encompassing lexical-semantic perspectives, speech act theory, and post-structural discourse analysis. Additionally, the analysis of the material reveals that invective is a hallmark of German political internet discourse, with manifestations in both explicit and implicit forms. The article discusses implicatures, arising through irony and metaphorization. The author concludes that metaphor can serve as a tool of persuasion. Metaphor, as a persuasive device, involves the intentional alteration of the mental representation of a given object based on the metaphorical image imposed by the manipulator. This typically includes exaggeration in some aspects of the metaphorically represented phenomenon while diminishing others.

1. Aman, R. (2005). Bayrisch-österreichisches Schimpfwörterbuch [Bavarian-Austrian swear dictionary]. München: Allitera-Verlag (in German).

2. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: University Press.

3. Butler, J. (2006). Hass spricht. Zur Politik des Performativen [Hate speech]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (in German).

4. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.

5. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Feilke, H. (1996). Sprache als soziale Gestalt. Ausdruck, Prägung und die Ordnung der sprachlichen Typik [Language as a social form. Expression and the order of the linguistic typology]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (in German).

7. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.

8. Graumann, C. (1998). Verbal Discrimination: ANeglected Chapter in the Social Psychology of Aggression. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28 (1), 41-61.

9. Kallmeyer, W. (1979). (Expressif) Eh ben dis donc, hein «pas bien» Zur Beschreibung von Exaltation als Interaktionsmodalität [Describing exaltation as interaction modality]. In: Kloepfer, Rolf (Hg.): Bildung und Ausbildung in der Romania. Akten des Romanistentages [Education and training in Romania. Files of the Romanian Day]. München: Fink (in German).

10. Kallmeyer, W., & Schütze F. (1977). Zur Konstitution von Kommunikationsschemata der Sachverhaltsdarstellung [On the constitution of communication schemes of the presentation of facts]. In: Dirk Wegner (Hg.): Gesprächsanalysen. Vorträge, gehalten anlässlich des 5. Kolloquiums des Instituts für Kommunikationsforschung und Phonetik [Conversation Analysis. Lectures held on the occasion of the 5th colloquium of the Institute for Communication Research and Phonetics], Bonn, October 14-16, 1976 (159-274). Hamburg (in German).

11. Kapeller, L., & Voigt, H. (1964). Das Schimpfbuch. Von Amtsschimmel bis Zimtziege [The swear book. From official mold to cinnamon goat]. Herrenalb / Schwarzwald: Erdmann (in German).

12. Krämer, S. (2001). John L. Austin: Performative und konstatierende Äußerungen: Warum lässt Austin diese Unterscheidung zusammenbrechen? [Performative and constative utterances: Why does Austin collapse this distinction?] In: Dies. (Hg.): Sprache, Sprechakt, Kommunikation [Language, speech act, communication]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (in German).

13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago.

14. Nübling, D., & Vogel, M. (2004). Fluchen und Schimpfen kontrastiv. Zur sexuellen, krankheitsbasierten, skatologischen und religiösen Fluchund Schimpfwortprototypik im Niederländischen, Deutschen und Schwedischen [Swearing. On sexual, disease-based, scatological, and religious prototypical curses and swear words in Dutch, German, and Swedish]. Germanistische Mitteilungen. Zeitschrift für Deutsche Sprache, Literatur und Kultur, Heft 59, 19-33 (in German).

15. Pfeiffer, H. (1997). Das große Schimpfenwörterbuch. Über 10000 Schimpf-, Spottund Neckwörter zur Bezeichnung von Personen [The big swear dictionary. Over 10,000 swear words and teasing words to describe people]. Frankfurt am Main: Eichborn (in German).

16. Pielinz, M. (1993). Argumentation und Metapher [Argumentation and Metaphor]. Tübingen (in German).

17. Scharloth, J. (2017). Hassrede [Hate Speech]. Sondernummer der Zeitschrift «Aptum», Heft 02/2017, 41-60. Hempen Verlag (in German).

18. Shchipitsina, L.J. (2009). Janri compjuternooposredovannoi kommunikazii [Genres of computer-mediated communication]. Arkhangelsk: Pomeranian University (in Russian).

19. Spiegel, C. (1995). Streit. Eine linguistische Untersuchung verbaler Interaktionen in alltäglichen Zusammenhängen [Dispute. A linguistic study of verbal interactions in everyday contexts]. Tübingen: Narr (in German).

20. Wagner, F. (2001). Implizite sprachliche Diskriminierung als Sprechakt. Lexikalische Indikatoren impliziter Diskriminierung in Medientexten [Implicit linguistic discrimination as a speech act. Lexical indicators of implicit discrimination in media texts]. Tübingen (in German).