LINGUISTIC MEANS OF CREATING HYPERBOLE IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE MEDIA DISCOURSE

Introduction

The purpose of these means of expression is to attract the attention of listeners by deliberately deviating from standard speech. Their purpose is to attract the attention of listeners by a deliberate deviation from the standard speech. The impact of speech is provided by multilevel linguistic means: phonetic, lexical, syntactic and non-verbal.

The 21st century is characterized by the widespread dissemination of information on the Internet, media, television and other sources. The speeches and actions of politicians occur in full view of everyone and are discussed on various Internet platforms. Politicians are forced to maintain their credibility and positive image by purposefully creating their own image. The image of a political leader is modeled by means of language. For citizens, the image of a political leader should reflect a "hero" who actively promotes the political views of a certain group of people. It is very important for a public person to have an image recognizable to the public, which does not always correspond to the person's real personality. Public appearances, appearances at events, "loud" words - all these will be used by journalists to describe a particular politician. The Internet plays a large role in the creation of the image, people discuss politics and politicians in social networks every day. A certain "stereotype" about a particular politician is based on the opinion of the majority. If a politician is really interested in being liked by the majority of people, he will do his best to portray his image positively in the media. An image can be created using linguistic means such as epithet, metaphor, comparison, hyperbole, antithesis, irony, and metonymy. These means will make the image much more effective, which will engage the public in a detailed study of the field.

Hyperbole and litany are two opposing rhetorical terms seen in political speeches. Hyperbole is a form of exaggeration, while litote is a form of understatement.

Although hyperbole has been one of the many figures of speech discussed in the general framework of rhetoric since antiquity, the emphasis has been primarily on defining and classifying this trope. The paucity of research on hyperbole is most notable in contemporary language studies, most notably perhaps because other disciplines consider it a classic trope, the study of which falls within the purview of rhetoric. Thus, no serious attention has been paid to the study of hyperbole in the field of linguistics. Most of the empirical work on exaggeration has included a comparison of its frequency and use in different cultures. The present study focuses on analyzing the trope of hyperbole in political speeches to determine their frequency in terms of types, uses, and functions.

The purpose of this study is to find out how hyperbolic expressions are identified and presented in English political discourse on linguistic and pragmatic levels.

 

Materials and methods

The analysis was based on the methods of systematization and classification of material, text interpretation, contextual analysis.

The analysis of the studied English data is based on two levels: linguistic, which includes two sublevels: lexical, semantic, and pragmatic and communicative conditions for identifying hyperbole in the data. In terms of these levels, hyperbolic expressions are analyzed and discussed according to their implementation in the data

The theoretical basis of the study was formed by the works of Russian and foreign scholars in the field of analyzing the language of dystopias, the theory of political discourse, stylistics and linguistics.

 

Results and discussion

The grammatical aspect works as a framing device because it involves mental simulation of actions. In some cases it enhances the simile and in others it diminishes the simile. Hyperbole is a rhetorical and literary device in which an author or speaker intentionally uses exaggeration and exaggeration for emphasis and effect. The word "hyperbole" comes from the Greek word "hyperbole," meaning "to throw up." When used in rhetoric, it is also called "auxesis," which comes from the Greek word for "growth." Hyperbole is a common literary device, but the use of hyperbole is also found in everyday narrative and in common figures of speech. Synonyms of hyperbole are exaggeration, exaggeration or excessive exaggeration, embellishment, magnification, or auxesis (which means growth).

Hyperbole is a trope in which an exaggerated term is used for emphasis or effect. Abrams and Harpham (2009: 149) state that "a figure of speech, or a trope called hyperbole (Greek for "hyperbole"), is a bold exaggeration or extravagant exaggeration of a fact or possibility. It can be used either for serious or for ironic or comic effect." In general, hyperboles are exaggerations. used for effect. Hyperbole means to show something or someone greater or more important than they really are. Thus, it is a device of figurative language and has nothing to do with literal meaning, deception, and lying, such as when someone says, "This book weighs a ton." Claridge (2011:1) argues. that maximizing things is a property of human nature because they are not content to report things or events as they really are. He therefore attributes such a property to a natural human tendency.

In everyday speech we use hyperbole to make a strong impression, to emphasize and evoke feelings. As a rhetorical device or figure of speech it can become a caricature, and we rarely take its meaning literally. "He has a brain the size of a pea" creates a vivid image that most listeners will understand but not accept as fact. Hyperbole as extreme exaggeration or exaggeration has the direct opposite in extreme understatement, also known as meiosis or understatement. Hyperbolic statements in creative writing catch the reader's attention when they stand out. Constant exaggeration can be tiresome and will work against audience distrust.

Hyperbole finds its place in shaping political image and is defined in the linguistic literature as a trope based on exaggeration of reality. In 2016, the image of Donald Trump as a "fundamentally dishonest politician" (fundamentally dishonest) began to be reinforced in the media.

Donald Trump uses hyperbole or exaggeration when talking about trash. Here are a few examples from his speech announcing his candidacy for president.

Example: "Our country is in serious trouble. We have no more victories. We had victories, but we don't have them. When was the last time anyone saw us beat, say, China in a trade deal? They're killing us. I beat China all the time. All the time."

Example: "When have we ever beaten Japan at anything? They send their cars by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist, guys. They used to beat us all the time."

Example: "When are we going to overtake Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they're beating us economically. They're not our friends, believe me. But they're killing us economically."

Example: "I like them. And I hear their speeches. And they don't talk about jobs, and they don't talk about China. When was the last time you heard that China is killing us? They're devaluing their currency to levels you wouldn't believe. It makes it impossible, impossible for our companies to compete. They're killing us."

Example: "Free trade can be great if you have smart people, but we have stupid people. We have people who are not smart. And we have people who are driven by special interests. And that's just not going to work."

Obviously, Donald Trump has taken advantage of the anger of many Americans toward his government and what they see as a lack of effective policies. In particular, Trump seems to be appealing to the middle class and lower socio-economic groups of Americans who feel the government is unfair to them.

Example: "Hey, I'm not saying they're stupid. I like China. I sell apartments for - I just sold a $15 million apartment to someone from China. Am I supposed to dislike them? I own a big chunk of the Bank of America building at 1290 Avenue of the Americas that I got from China during the war. Very valuable."

In our study, we found that a certain trope of exaggeration, like hyperbole, is also often found in the speech of politicians. This trope is based on excessive exaggeration. To quote Ross Ardern: "But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscapes of our nation; an education system flushed with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

In this sentence Ardern uses four hyperboles at once. Thus, he says, people are "trapped" like animals, empty factories look like "tombstones," and gangs and drugs steal lives and rob people of their future.

Another example of hyperbole can be seen in another statement by a president of the United States: "...Americas infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay." Here he is saying that America's infrastructure is simply falling apart. As we can see, hyperbole is a semantic element aimed at accentuating meaning, which in the texts of electoral speeches manifests itself in a general strategy of positive representation of the speaker's candidacy and negative - of his opponents.

Thus, syntactic transformations can be politically significant, as they not only have a great impact on the recipient's perception of the situation, but also lead to a redefinition of the situation in relation to who is the protagonist.

The press uses hyperbole to reinforce insufficiently meaningful speech by politicians. If hyperbole is used in a negative sense, as in the previous example, it will have a bad effect on the politician's image, which is likely to be shaped as a destructive (negative) image.

Defining the categories or forms of hyperbole is seen as the most important step, especially in the awareness and analysis of hyperbole in speeches and texts. As a general principle, it can be inferred from the definition of hyperbole that any word or expression can be regarded as hyperbole when it is exaggerated or understated for a specific purpose.

McCarthy and Carter (2004) mention five categories of hyperbole in their analysis. Sert (2008) takes CANCODE (Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English) as the basis for his analysis of the conjugation corpus, which is a British television series (written by Stephen Moffat and broadcast on BBC2 from 2000 to 2004). Sert (2008: 11), following McCarthy and Carter (2004), adopts five basic hyperbolic categories to determine the hyperbolization of lexical elements. elements:

• number expressions.
• words referring to large sums/quantities
• adjectives modifying quantity (sums) and number (numbers)
• expressions of time,
• size, degree, and intensity.

Claridge (2011: 40-41) classifies hyperbole, in general, into two main branches: basic and compound hyperbole. Basic hyperbole, also known as domain-preserving hyperbole, is defined as those hyperbolic expressions that do not go beyond the domain of the corresponding literal expression, such as the temperature domain (cold and frost) or (minutes and centuries or eternity) as parts of the time domain... etc.

Compound hyperbole is another type of hyperbole, also known as domain switching, i.e., metaphorical hyperbole. It is defined in contrast to basic hyperbole, that is, those hyperbolic expressions that go beyond the usual limits of a particular domain or may be in different semantic/cognitive provinces. Claridge (2011: 46) lists the following types: numerical hyperbole (1,000 percent), hyperbolic words: nouns (ages), adjectives (colossal), adverbs (astronomically), verbs (die), similarity and metaphor (cross as devil), comparative and superlative degrees (in less than no time), emphatic genitive case (best of the best watches), emphatic plural (all spirits of Arabia, Shakespeare), whole sentences (he is nothing if not deliberate)

Claridge (ibid.: 46-47) also comments on Spitzbardt's (1963, 1965) classification of hyperbolic forms and criticizes some points in this classification of hyperbolic forms. In general he makes two points; the first is that Spitzbardt's classification is not based on a corpus of data; he cites only a few authentic examples. The second is that this classification has some defects or shortcomings. For example, it does not indicate which form is more or less frequent because it is more or less frequent because it is not supported by the corpus.

Two things are important about this classification: it must be based clearly on formal, i.e., syntactic and/or morphological (not semantic), and it must be empirically based on the available data.

Hyperbole is an expression that is "more extreme than justified, given its ontological referent" (Burgers, Brugman et al., 2016, p. 166). For example, Donald Trump stated that Mexico is "the second deadliest country in the world," and therefore argued that a border wall must be built to protect the United States (Los Angeles Times, 2017). Such a hyperbolic frame can portray a problem or event as larger than it actually is (Norrick, 2004) and can redirect the political discussion from the more open question of whether something is good or bad to the more closed question of how good or bad something is. Thus, hyperbole creates a message devoid of nuance, leaving no room for contingency, and appealing to emotion (Kalkhoven, 2015). Using a hyperbolic framework over a longer period of time can have important implications for political policy. Kaufmann (2004), for example, argues that the George W. Bush administration's support for going to war with Iraq came (in part) from the administration's exaggeration of the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein's regime and weapons of mass destruction. Thus, hyperbole can contribute to the legitimacy of policy proposals (Kalkhoven & De Landtsheer, 2016).

Anti-immigration rhetoric typically plays on emotions such as anger (Breeze, 2020) and fear (Kopytowska & Chilton, 2018) and promotes straightforward policies that are very concrete and leave no room for contingencies (Hameleers et al., 2017). Metaphor and hyperbole can evoke emotion by evoking a vivid image (Charteris-Black, 2006; Claridge, 2010), and can increase the perceived intensity of a message (that is, the degree to which a statement differs from an objective, unvalued statement; Hamilton & Stewart, 1993.). Metaphors can activate connotations associated with strong and negative concepts such as war and other threats, and hyperbole can exaggerate danger and emphasize threats (Charteris-Black, 2006; Kalkhoven, 2015). Thus, both tropes can be used to heighten the intensity of anti-immigration rhetoric and to evoke negative emotions (Charteris-Black, 2006). This leads to our first hypothesis:

H1: Compared to literal language, negatively colored metaphor or negatively colored hyperbole increase (a) the intensity of the perceived message of anti-immigration rhetoric and evoke (b) stronger negative emotions and (c) weaker positive emotions.

When metaphor and/or hyperbole are used to frame a political issue, these imagery frames can influence political opinion (Boeynaems et al., 2017). In frame theory, frames are generally defined as consisting of two elements: frame techniques that offer a framework for considering an issue, and logical techniques that provide justifications or reasons for a common position (Gamson & Lasch, 1983, p. 399). Traditionally, framing researchers have classified types of figurative language (e.g., metaphors, hyperboles) only under the heading of framing devices (Gamson & Lasch, 1983). Burgers, Conine et al. (2016) presented a new perspective on this issue and argued that figurative language can work as framing devices and reasoning techniques: metaphors and hyperboles not only add rhetorical effect to an utterance, but can also convey conceptual content (Burgers, Konijn et al., 2016). Thus, figurative frames can serve one or more of the frame functions defined by Entman (1993): they can contribute to defining a specific problem, causal interpretation, problem evaluation, and/or possible problem solving (Burgers, Konijn et al., 2016). Such imagery frameworks likely influence how voters perceive the problem (Brugman et al., 2019).

So far, we have focused on anti-immigration frames that contain metaphor or hyperbole in isolation. Metaphor and hyperbole are different tropes (Carston & Wearing, 2015): while metaphor transfers elements of the source domain to the target domain (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), hyperbole implies evaluation on a qualitative or quantitative scale (Burgers, Brugman et al. ., 2016). However, although metaphor and hyperbole are distinctive figures, they are easily combined (Carston & Wearing, 2015). Anti-immigration rhetoric often involves the emergence of frames that combine metaphor and hyperbole (Kalkhoven, 2015). For example, right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders hyperbolically extended the metaphor of the immigrant wave to a "tsunami" when he referred to Islamic immigrants arriving in the Netherlands (NU.nl, 2006). Thus, metaphor and hyperbole can be used to form three types of figurative frames: frames containing only metaphor, frames containing only hyperbole, and frames combining metaphor and hyperbole.

Both metaphor and hyperbole can influence how voters perceive an issue (Boeynaems et al., 2017; Kalkhoven & De Landtsheer, 2016). Moreover, frames containing both metaphor and hyperbole combine the persuasive potential of individual figures (Burgers, Konijn et al., 2016). Such a combinatorial imagery frame contains two rhetorical operations simultaneously, making it more difficult for critics to challenge it, which probably increases its persuasiveness. Thus, combinatorial figurative frames are expected to create persuasive effects beyond the impact of frames containing a single type of figurativity (Burgers, Konijn et al., 2016.). Thus far, scholars who have studied the persuasive effects of combinatorial figurative frames (e.g., immigration is a natural disaster; Charteris-Black, 2006) have focused on their metaphorical nature and have not studied their combinatorial effects (Boeynaems et al., 2017). Moreover, such studies have tended to use a critical discursive approach and have mainly examined the role of figurative frames in public debate (Charteris-Black, 2006; Musolff, 2017).

Although it is widely recognized that figurative language can be used to enhance message persuasiveness (e.g., Boeynaems et al., 2017; Sopory & Dillard, 2002), no experimental research to date has tested the persuasiveness of these tropes in the context of anti-immigration rhetoric. To test the persuasive power of metaphor and hyperbole in this context, we hypothesized the following:

H2: Anti-immigration rhetoric that combines metaphor and hyperbole is more persuasive than metaphoric or hyperbolic anti-immigration rhetoric, which in turn is more persuasive than non-figurative anti-immigration rhetoric. Scholars generally agree that at least part of the persuasive power of anti-immigration rhetoric lies in its intensity and power to elicit reactions of anger and fear (Breeze, 2020; Wirz, 2018). The hypothesis that metaphors and hyperbole can be effective through affect is also supported by persuasion theories and media effect studies. For example, Meyers-Levy and Malavia (1999) presented a model of persuasion in which experience processing (the notion that judgments can be based on feelings or experiences generated by a process) is added as an important precursor to persuasion. Another study found that emotion and affect contribute to persuasion in general (Konijn, 2008; Nabi, 2009) and, in particular, to the realism perceived in media messages, further increasing the informational value attributed to them (Konijn et al., 2009). Rhetorical figures are likely to be processed in this experiential way (Van Mulken et al., 2005), and thus their persuasive effect is likely to be influenced by the emotions they evoke (Konijn, 2008; Meyers-Levy & Malaviya, 1999; Nabi, 2009).  We found a common main effect of anti-immigration metaphor on emotion. Subsequent one-factor analysis, with adjustments by Holm, showed that the metaphor reinforced the negative emotion of fear and had no effect on any other emotion. No effect of hyperbole or the interaction effect of metaphor and hyperbole on emotion was found. As for message intensity, the results were consistent with H1: metaphor and hyperbole increased message intensity. Regarding emotion, we only found that metaphors increased fear. We found no effect of metaphor and hyperbole on positive emotion and no effect of hyperbole on negative emotion. The anti-immigration metaphor increased the intensity of the message. No effect of hyperbole or interaction between metaphor and hyperbole was found. We found an overall main effect of the anti-immigration metaphor on emotion. A subsequent one-factor analysis, with adjustments by Holm, showed that the metaphor increased the negative emotions of anger, fear, and sadness and decreased the positive emotions of hope, satisfaction, and enthusiasm. No effect of hyperbole and the interaction effect of metaphor and hyperbole on emotion was found. Regarding metaphors, the results were again consistent with H1: anti-immigration metaphors increased intensity and negative emotions (anger, fear, sadness) and decreased positive emotions (hope, satisfaction, enthusiasm). However, H1 was not supported for anti-immigration hyperbolas, which had no effect on message intensity and emotion (positive or negative).

We then tested our hypothesis regarding the main effect of figurative statements on political belief (H2). 2 (anti-immigration metaphor: present, absent) × 2 (anti-immigration hyperbole: present, absent) × 2 (study) MANOVA with respect to policy dependent variables, evaluation of the politician, and probability of voting for the politician. conducted.

However, Trump's hyperbolic predictions inflate his greatness to a degree proportional to the uselessness of his enemies whom he has "counterattacked." This backward correlation takes many forms. He may project his perceived shortcomings onto others in order to change public opinion by exaggerating lies (his alliance had "the highest number [of viewers] in history"). In other cases, he will distort by making an exaggerated claim in an already embellished fact that "seems true," but only to exaggerate its importance: for example, if the economy succeeds in some respects (e.g., lower unemployment among blacks), Trump will claim it is the best it has ever been and then claim it is because he, not some other "worthless" president, is in charge. Even Trump's America, with its rigged system, can only be great again if it is terrible now. and because Trump "alone can fix it." In the logic of Trump's hyperbole, the only thing under-noticed or under-appreciated-which can justify the hyperbole is Trump.

Perhaps, then, the point is that Trump's apparent appropriation of postmodern insights can be seen through the lens of his hyperbolic projection: only by making the media itself the enemy could Trump project his own flaws and errors onto the sources that make those flaws obvious. Trump may not be a diabolical postmodern genius, but the tactic is still in use. Consequently, hyperbole must be separated from projection. If facts are reported in the news, those facts are not "fake," they are simply meaningless and worthless until interpreted. Likewise, if the news presents opinions, those opinions should be based on said facts, not an outraged reaction to Trump (which would only be hyperbolically projected back into a vicious circle). This goes to the question of what should be reported and how those reports can be interpreted.

 

Conclusions

Hyperbole is essentially an exaggeration for the sake of effect or emphasis, that is, it enlarges and magnifies reality, and, naturally, by increasing products, diverges from reality.  The frequency of the use of hyperbole in everyday conversation is confirmed in many idiomatic expressions, since the English are more accustomed to speaking in numbers.

At first glance, our results suggest that the typically tense and emotional rhetoric used by anti-immigration politicians cannot be seen as a factor explaining their success. However, by pushing the views of voters with opposing ideas away from their own ideas, populist leaders increase the gap between populist voters and other voters, which may indirectly contribute to the populists' success.

This study focused on the effects of figurative framing in the context of right-wing anti-immigration rhetoric. Therefore, our conclusions are limited to this particular context. Nevertheless, the discourse of right-wing populism may focus on other perceived grievances as well as economic change, political elitism, corruption, and other topics. Future research may attempt to replicate these findings in other relevant themes and with other relevant figurative frames. The semantics of grammar and hyperbole and their impact on political issues have not been sufficiently explored. Differences in grammatical aspect or other grammatical forms can lead to very different conclusions about when someone will do something and in what way. And differences in metaphors can be used to strengthen or improve people's attitudes toward political candidates. We use grammar and metaphors all the time, but we have only begun to surface how they shape our everyday thoughts and actions.