Joe Biden’s Conceptual Metaphors: Framing His Rhetoric and Staging His Political Personae

This research focuses on Joe Biden’s political personae framed by means of conceptual metaphors. His acceptance speech (21 August, 2020), victory speech (8 November, 2020), and inaugural address (21 January, 2021) serve as the primary data for the study. The texts are analyzed qualitatively, and metaphors are manifested following the Pragglejaz method. While discussing Biden’s resultant persuasive strategies, themes, and staged identities, references are made to metaphorical (self )-presentations by his predecessor, Donald Trump. The findings demonstrate that while Biden was hardly seen as a perfect candidate, his alternative rhetoric, emotional bonding with the public, inclusion of people into decision-making, and carefully constructed metaphorical roles (e.g., constructor, warrior, healer, author, traveler) helped him gain victory.

the previous elections did not work anymore; people supposedly expected more of him, while his rhetoric remained the same. Joe Biden offered a new perspective, not necessarily adored by everyone yet alternative. While Biden was hardly seen as a perfect candidate this time (just as back in 1998 and 2008), Trump's inability to tackle the pandemic gave an upper hand for Biden with his sensible speeches, inclusion of people, and vision of what to do with the crisis.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who also ran against Trump, Biden connected with people as a deep empath (Hart 2022, 10). He managed to save face by avoiding attacking Trump openly, focusing on his own agenda instead. Biden's empathy is metaphorically presented on quite a few instances, where he conceptualizes of his gif as a pysicl ssio e.g., in the Acceptance Speech: "I know that deep black hole that opens up in the middle of your chest and you feel like you're being sucked into it". 1 The painful bodily experience evoked by this statement gives it a powerful impact. It also makes the abstract concepts of gif and sss tangible and thus relatable, as explained by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the forefathers of the conceptual metaphor theory.
Apart from facilitating the understanding of complex and abstract things, metaphors pinpoint certain framings and persuade the public to either think of something in a particular way or take certain actions (Bougher 2012, 146;Sebera & Lu 2018, 68). For instance, Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2015) posit that people expect different handling of a crime depending on the metaphorical framing. If it is conceptualized as a bs, they are inclined toward strict punishment; if it is conceptualized as a vis, they treat it as a disease, hence expecting social changes. In a similar vein, the war on drugs once declared by Reagan led to harsher sentences for drug dealers: the issue was conceptualized as w and, respectively, all smugglers as an y to be fought (Thibodeau 2016).
In other words, political framing of societal problems defines the trajectory of the public perception at least to some extent. Given that discourse is a primary tool of communicating ideologies and reproducing power (cf. e.g., Van Dijk 1997), presidential speeches are a viable platform to do so. A metaphor also allows for creating a favorable emotive image and upkeeping the perception politics that modern "political consumers" 2 get served.
Even though metaphors in political discourse are mostly implicit (i.e., the audience is not expected to identify or consciously process them), they persuade listeners about the politician's righteousness (Charteris-Black 2011, 304). Metaphors help lead the audience in a certain direction, make them look at a matter from a certain perspective or partake in a series of actions (cf. Gibbs 2015, 272;Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 10). Repetitive, "extended metaphors" (Gibbs 2015) are especially effective in cementing an idea and forcing the audience think of it as their own (e.g., Trump's notorious conceptualization of immigrants as ils, in Pilyarchuk & Onysko 2018, 105-6).
Given the inherently persuasive power of metaphors in political discourse, this research focuses on Joe Biden's use of metaphors. The goal is to demonstrate how Biden's metaphors contribute to shaping his staged, political personae (cf. Waarden & Kohlrausch 2021). A detailed qualitative analysis of selected Biden's speeches allows for tracing overarching themes and pinpointing the aspects of Biden's staged identity that enabled him to become the 46 th president.

Data and methodology
The U.S. presidential campaigns require that every official candidate deliver an acceptance speech, where they accept the nomination and publicly share their vision, political agenda, and promises. This is arguably the most competitive public address that defines the candidate's competitive power against the opponent (Trent and Friedenberg 2000, 223-30). The elected president is expected to deliver two more key speeches -the victory speech and the inaugural address. Although these three texts differ in the purposes pursued, they are key instruments to shape one's political image, present one's identity, and construct one's leadership style to the public. These speeches shape specific themes and problems to build respective associations on part of listeners, and metaphors play a vital role therein (Van Dijk 2006, 361).
The analysis is informed by CMT (Conceptual Metaphor Theory), first offered by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), and facilitated by the Pragglejaz Method of metaphor identification and interpretation (Pragglejaz Group 2007). According to CMT, there is an intricate link between metaphors in thought and metaphors in language. Metaphor is characteristic of both human imagination and reason (Lakoff and Turner 1989), and humans understand one conceptual domain through another domain (Kövesces 2010, 4). Abstract domains (e.g., lov, lif, or i) are more easily explained via concrete domains that people experience first-hand (e.g., joy or oy). That is why we stand at a crossroads (lif is  joy), use sharp words (wos  wpos), and have breakdowns (popl  cis). In this regard, metaphoric mappings are grounded on bodily and everyday experience rather than created haphazardly (Lakoff 1993, 245). A lot of metaphors are used automatically, as even young children have access to mappings based on their interaction with the environment and "conceptual embodiment" (Lakoff 1987,12;Lakoff and Turner 1989, xi). On the other hand, a large portion of metaphors in discourse are used consciously or intentionally, with a manipulative aim.
Following the Pragglejaz Method, the procedure was as follows: first reading of Biden's speeches for the larger context, without deeper interpretations; subdivision of every speech into Steen's (2007, 21) "discourse units" for further analysis; identification of potentially metaphorical chunks and dictionary work to establish the initial meanings of word; postulation and grouping of metaphors according to their source domains (see Appendix B).
For illustration, this is how the following clause from AS is approached: "Working families will struggle to get by" -Working / families / will struggle / to / get by.
of space economy, only one unit -'will struggle' -is presented here step by step: contextual meaning: here, the verb implies effort and difficulty in satisfying the most basic needs.
basic meaning: As consulted in MacMillan Dictionary and confirmed in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, the basic meaning of 'struggle' is "to use your strength to fight against someone or something".
contextual vs. basic meaning: The contextual meaning does not fully coincide with the basic one but can be understood by comparison. People understand abstract concepts via physical actions.
The same process must be applied to every unit in a clause, enabling a scholar to arrive at a conclusion regarding the clause's metaphorical meaning. It is neither rational nor necessary to go into detail about either every unit of analysis or every single metaphor. The primary attention will thus be paid to metaphors that contribute to repetitive framings and construction of Biden's political image. All other metaphors from the three texts are listed in Appendix B, and their frequency and distribution across speeches is provided in Appendix A and represented in Figure 1 for further references.
3 From general findings to overarching themes in Biden's discourse All metaphors found in Biden's three speeches are categorized according to their source domain (SD), as represented in Figure 1 Figure 1 demonstrates that a large chunk of metaphors lies within the scope of highly conventional metaphors with the SDs of pso (14%), objc (12%), spil (12%), copiio (10%) and bilig (8%). Such basic findings are by no means surprising as the same domains would arguably be typical for any presidential candidate, either Republican or Democratic (as also seen in Trump's use of metaphors described by e.g., Pilyarchuk & Onysko 2018, 103

objc metaphors
Fairly frequent (12% or 56 instances) and highly conventionalized, objc metaphors facilitate Biden's we versus them dichotomy. In the AS, the incumbent president conceptualizes sposibiliy (1) and sps (2) as objcs alluding to the fact that Trump failed to assume responsibility for his people during the pandemic. These metaphors serve the purpose of juxtaposition: Biden presents himself as the leader who will do the opposite: (1) sposibiliy is  objc ("He's given four more years, he'll be what he's been for the last four years. A president who takes no responsibility"; AS) (2) sps  objcs ("As president, the first step I will take will be to get control of the virus"; AS) While Trump breaks his promises, he (Biden) treats his as holy ("I've just taken a sacred oath"; IS).
Biden also blames Trump for failure to protect the social security policy for seniors by conceptualizing a pois is  bil objc (3). He reiterates this framing in IS for occy is  bil objc ("democracy is fragile"). It creates an image of a tangible object that can break or crack, hence being in a dire need of protection.
(3) pois is  bil objc ("the current president is threatening to break that promise"; AS) Every time Biden speaks of something positive as an objc (4) creates the image of a clash between us versus them (9): (9) fligs  pysicl focs 9.1. "for love is more powerful than hate"; AS 9.2. "hope is more powerful than fear"; AS One last way in which Biden metaphorically others Trump is presenting him as an -sois is via the metaphor (10) gs   ("president who [...] fans the flames of hate and division"; AS). Presenting hatred and division as powerful destructive forces (for which Trump is responsible) to deal with, Biden offers to "lower the temperature" (VS, IS). While aggression and gs   (danger and destruction), coolness is a preferred reaction. Biden thus promises that his reaction will always remain cool -the temperature will be lower.

spil metaphors
spil metaphors make up 12% of all metaphors in our data, and Biden actively (re)uses x is p. Cognitively, positive and happy are always p, while negative and miserable are ow. Such a framing has been proved in multiple simulation tests, where vertical positioning of a power group defines its perceived authority and value -the powerful should be on top and the powerless on bottom (Schubert 2005 This space is conceptualized as bounded by protective rails: unlike a fence, guardrails allow for light and visibility because democracy is not supposed to exclude differences of opinions or prohibit disagreements. Such a democracy primarily makes everyone equal under God (as the highest authority). It contrasts with Trump's notorious framing of immigrants as wild animals and even lower animals (insects) (Pilyarchuk & Onysko 2018, 113;cf. Lakoff and Turner 1989, 166-80).
Biden says, "I will always level with you" (IS), creating the metaphor of (16) big l is big o  s lvl. Coupled with the spil metaphor (17, 18), he effectively explains how he will be a leader on par with his citizens but also an apt navigator of the country: (17) fis is i fo 17.1. "We can make America once again the leading force for good in the world"; IS 17.2. "and we'll lead not merely by the example of our power"; IS (18) f is  ("as we look ahead in our uniquely American way"; IS).
Verbally, Biden places himself among the people -although he is the leader who takes up the responsibility, it is mostly Biden's we against Trump's I that manifests in the speeches.
Overall, Biden's political rhetoric lets people into the decision-making process. Positioning himself as not only a great leader of a large nation but also a father, a family man, and an empath (which is, again, characteristic of the nurturant parent model, i.e. oliy is py), Biden builds a strong connection with his listeners. Empathy and agreeableness are among key voting factors (Caprara et al. 2002, 92 (23) and (24). This way, he stresses the agency of shaping an effective policy and its benefits rather than threats:

The frame of family
(23) iigio policy is  io ("with an immigration system that […] reflects our values"; AS) (24) iigs  fl ("with an immigration system that powers our economy"; AS) According to Caprara et al. (2002, 80), voters are more guided by how they see the politician's personality than by what his or her leadership style is. Thus, Biden aims to let people in, be open, and make alliances rather than exclude anyone. His dominant frame is that of unity, not fear.

Politics as a religion
lig and k are domains that affect participants' judgments in multiple empirical studies. For instance, people automatically process bright-colored words on screen as positive and dark-colored words as negative (Meier et al. 2004). Color is not the only factor for such evaluations, but a positive idea typed in black takes longer to process.
The same logic is observed in fairy tales with mostly light-haired heroes and dark-attired villains. Joe Biden makes an extensive use of lig-k metaphors, where lig stands for happiness and success (25), and k represents misery and failure (26)

Joe Biden's political image
Biden gained victory over Trump i.e., managed to create a public image or a staged persona (Goffmann 1956) that appealed to a larger number of voters (cf. Degani 2016, 131). Some metaphorical mappings and overarching themes that contributed to his selfpresentation were already described in the previous sections. They will serve as the basis for this last section, which focuses on how Joe Biden used the key speeches at the dawn of his presidency to metaphorically self-construct a desirable political profile. Framing a particular problem and its solution with metaphors, Biden creates a metaphorical space to appear as a leader who will do what his predecessor failed to do, correct his predecessor's mistakes, and continue the course previously taken by Democratic presidents.

wio  copio
People do not necessarily decipher metaphors in political discourse, but they trace the general allegorical theme. If the speaker re-uses poliicl bs  boxig cs metaphor to present him-/herself and the opponent as boxers, listeners experience the "embodied simulation process": they imagine themselves taking shots or punching (Gibbs 2015, 265). This metaphor derives from a classic one gs  w and is highly persuasive because it allows for creating permanent associations about the politician, their strategies, and visions. The domain of w, with battles, troops, and president as the commander in chief lets one evoke a sense of emergency. At times of war, there is always an enemy to be fought, be it inflation, the previous president, or immigration.
When Biden makes statements like (31.1) and (31.2), he promises to be the leading power of positive changes. By making references to Trump's negative steps in combatting the virus and treating other problems, Biden appears to stand for everything civilized: (33) vis is  sciv foc ("the first step I will take will be to get control of the virus that has ruined so many lives"; AS) A similar capacity, that of a g/poco is manifested by Biden's repetitive x is  wklig formula, where x is something or someone in need of defence: (34) socil sciy is  wklig ("If I'm your president, we're going to protect social security and Medicare"; AS) (35) cosiio is  wklig ("I will defend the constitution"; IS) (36) io is  wklig ("As president, I'll make you a promise. I'll protect America"; AS) (37) occy is  wklig ("We have a great purpose [...], to save our democracy"; AS) (38)  is  wklig ("to defend the truth and defeat the lies"; IS) Such vivid images of urgency, threat and the president who will save the nation from foes work more effectively than explicit, non-metaphor messages (Gibbs 2015). While Biden's voters do not necessarily establish the metaphor of bi is  svio for themselves, the messages become engraved in their mind.

l
Metaphors of physical suffering promote negative reactions to a subject. Trump mainly resorted to such framings to portray immigration and financial losses as physical wounds/ pains (as an active anti-immigrantist and businessman concerned with money -see Pil- yarchuk & Onysko 2018, 116-7). In turn, Biden uses these domains to place himself on par with the people and share their pain:

cosco and pi
The image of Biden as one who builds /repairs is enabled by the scheme of coi-. A nation is typically conceived of as a bilig (47)  (56) ol vis  bicks ("It will be constructed out of compassion, empathy, and concern"; VS) Biden's image of a builder puts him on par with the people -together, they will be restoring the country that others left in a deplorable condition. The invitation of people to act together and serve as agents of changes distinguishes his self-presentation from Trump's egocentric profile.

author
Biden reiterates the isoy is  book metaphor throughout his three speeches. In this, he follows his Democratic predecessor Obama, who conceptualized of "turning pages" as making advancement and changing the country for better (cf. Charteris-Black 2011, 299;Richie 2013, 165). Biden goes further and ascribes a place to everyone: he makes himself the author/editor and invites the people to take on the roles of co-authors and characters:  (59). Biden's presidency should become a "great chapter", and it will be "about the people": (59) psicy is  soy ("He'll [Trump] wake up every day believing the job is all about him, never about you"; AS) Biden also makes a reference to his father's wisdom (60); conceptualizing job as a story, he reiterates how worthy a president he will be, as guided by his religious and moral compass.
(60) job is  soy ("Joey, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it's about your dignity. It's about respect"; AS).
On one instance, Biden also speaks about (61) lif s  ovi ("We'll press forward with speed and urgency"; IS), a mapping that adds another angle to the conceptualization.
Reading a book page by page is a lengthy and tiresome process unlike using a remote to press forward to lig. In both cases, it is the inclusive we component that gives people agency in this chapter of American history.

vl
spil schemas are acquired early in childhood and are inevitably used in language.
Although they are highly conventionalized e.g., lif is  joy. Biden uses these mappings to present himself and his supporters as politicians who are not afraid of obsta- This framing of a heroic journey with the aim to bring positive change to the country also marked Obama's campaign and served for him as a nucleus of further conceptualizations (see Darsey 2009, 94). Biden adds God and history (63) that call upon people to make this message even more emotive and convey a sense of purpose and unity. The domain of joy motivates the audience toward action as it maps the route to a better destination (Sebera and Lu 2018, 74). This is again a frame where Biden presents himself as one of the vls (just like one of coscos, ls, and w-ios). He shares this role with the people. While assuming responsibility as the leader, he does not disregard their essential role either.  In two instances, Biden also presents himself as a f in court, stressing the serving role to the people (e.g., "Just judge this president on the facts" AS; "We will be judged, you and I"; IS). These assumed roles are manifested on fewer instances that the rest though. While they cannot be ignored due to their potential manipulative value, further research into the incumbent president's discourse would be necessary to analyze whether these metaphorical personae are characteristic of his rhetoric at large.

Final reflection and conclusion
Metaphor in political discourse helps create a story, an image, and a desirable strategy.
While human thought is inherently metaphoric, some metaphors are used consciously and purposefully e.g., to present a political candidate in favourable light, to 'other' the