СТРУКТУРНО-СЕМАНТИЧЕСКАЯ СПЕЦИФИКА МЕТАФОРИЧЕСКИХ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ КОЛЛОКАЦИЙ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ И ТУРЕЦКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ

Introduction

Metaphorical collocations have often been the object under study in different areas of linguistics such as phraseology, stylistics, linguodidactics, corpus linguistics, combinatorial linguistics and others.

The current research aims at identifying and describing structural and combinatorial characteristics of metaphorical collocations constituting a part of political lexicon. Based on the works by D. A. Cruse, S. Bartsch, A. N. Baranov and D. O. Dobrovolskiy, M. V. Vlavatskaya and other scholars we define collocation as a recurrent combination of two or more notional words that are in certain syntactic relations with each other. Collocations possess such qualities as: 1) recurrence as a single unit; 2) repeatability (the word combination has high ranks in the corpora and/or is listed in dictionaries); 3) semi-fixedness (as collocations admit some syntactic variation); 4) limited (lexical, semantic or/and pragmatic) compatibility - the keyword combines with a limited group of words; 5) compositionality of  meaning, i.e. the meaning of a collocation can be perceived from the meanings of its components though some of them may allow for 6) a certain degree of sematic opacity. The object of the current research is two-component collocations of attributive-substantive type belonging to the language of politics, i.e. political collocations with metaphorical meaning.

Therefore, the short-term aims of the study described in this paper are as follows:

1) extracting metaphorical collocations from lexicographical sources, national corpora and collections of political mediatexts compiled by the author;

2) identifying the key structural and semantic patterns of metaphorical collocations;

3) defining the degree of metaphorization: that is to find out whether a metaphor expands into a wider context or is restricted to a collocation;

4) finding out the main source domains of metaphorical expansion represented in the collocations under study.

As we are dealing with collocations of the languages that differ in their system it seems relevant to also provide a comparative analysis of syntactical structure of attributive-substantive collocations in English and Turkish.

Theoretical framework

According to A.N. Baranov and D. O. Dobrovolskiy a metaphorical collocation is a combination of words in which the one is used in its direct meaning and the other is a metaphor changing the meaning of the first one, e.g. зерно истины ‘seed of truth’), червь сомнения ‘worm of doubt’, etc. [4, P. 67-68]. M. Macis and N. Schmitt suggest classifying collocations into literal, figurative and duplex ones.  The meanings of figurative collocations are not equal to the simple sum of the meanings of their constituents; as for duplex collocations, they can be used both literally and metaphorically, e.g. one-way ticket [25]. Investigating collocations in Ch. Dikkens’ works, M. Hori distinguishes metaphorical collocations as one of the types of creative collocations alongside with “oxymoronic”, “transferred”, “disparate”, “modified idiomatic” and others [23, P. 57]. M. Hori points out that in a metaphorical collocation either one of the components or both can be used in a figurative meaning. Though following a narrower approach to the definition of collocation on the whole (as we consider being reccurent one of its main features) we tend to share Hori’s opinion that metaphorical collocations are not restricted to combinations in which only one constituent has a figurative meaning. S. A. Khakhalova considers metaphorical word-combinations one of the types of metaphorical units as well as one-word metaphors and metaphors expressed by whole sentences. Metaphorical word-combinations (collocations) as units of a secondary nomination are syntagmatic structures actualized within more than one binary syntagm and involved in certain (non-predicative) syntactic relations [11]. According to their functions they fall into substantive, adjectival and verbal substantive metaphorical word-combinations whereas the criterion of stylistic significance allows to distinguish the following types of metaphorical collocations: the so-called “dead”, usual and occasional [ibid.].

Compatibility of elements within metaphorical collocations as well as collocability of collocations themselves as language units presents a particular interest for linguistic research. In modern linguistics metaphor is mainly viewed as a basic mental operation, as a means of cognition used for structuring and explaining the world around us; it is considered that people do not only express their thoughts with the help of metaphors but also think using metaphors thus creating the world they live in [2], [9], [12], [24]. Comprehension of some phenomenon in terms of another one has to result in the same collocates used with a language unit in both the source domain and a target domain. However, the research shows this is not always the case. A. Deignan argues that “different meanings of a word tend to have different groups of collocates” [19, P. 198].  For example, analyzing the combination of pay and price (where both words seem to originate in the source domain of money) she finds out that in several linguistic structures, such as small/heavy/high price to pay are only found together in the target domain [ibid.]. In combinatorial linguistics, in its turn, it is claimed that the compatibility of a metaphorical unit depends on a number of various factors, the most important of them being the fact whether the metaphor we are dealing with is a linguistic (lexical, usual) or a creative one. Thus, a linguistic metaphor can be realized in a minimal context and does not necessarily have further semantic development [6].

We have proceeded from the assumption that metaphor in political collocations is manifested in different ways: 1) a word from the source domain after getting into a target domain either retains its syntagmatic relations from the source domain or acquires new ones thus forming a new “collocational field”; 2) the same process is undergone by a whole collocation; 3) both components of a collocation are used metaphorically, though originating from different source domains or different slots of the same source domain. In other terms, these collocations differ in their “degree of metaphorization”.

As we consider collocations to be semi-fixed word combinations capable of being reproduced and functioning as independent units, our research is presumably focused on conventional metaphors, i.e. metaphorical uses fixed in lexical and semantic system of the language as well as the metaphors frequently used in political discourse that have lost their initial brightness and expressiveness. I. M. Kobozeva calls such metaphors “traditional” [7].

We have also attempted identifying key metaphorical models represented by the collocations under study. It is known that while analyzing metaphor in various spheres of its functioning scientists differentiate different types and groups of metaphors.  According to A.P. Chudinov, the main four categories of political metaphor are the following: “man (human being)”, “society”, “nature”, “artefacts”, thus classifying metaphors into anthropomorphic, nature-morphic, sociomorphic and artifact metaphors [12]. It is in accordance with these spheres that people map political reality. Thus, the sources of metaphorical expansion within the nature-morphic category are the conceptual spheres “animal world”, “plant world”, “world of inanimate nature”, etc.; that is, political reality is understood through the concepts of the world surrounding the man. The anthropomorphic category includes such source domains as “love and friendship”, “family”, “illness”, etc.; the sociomorphic category is represented by the source domains “war”, “crime”, “sport”, “theatre and cinema”, etc. Finally, the artifact metaphor includes such spheres as “mechanism”, “house and building”, “tools’, “world of computers” and others.

Methodology

The material base of the study included monolingual dictionaries of political language, the data of national corpora: the English corpora (News on the Web (NOW),  Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi (TUD) as well as the two collectıons of texts compiled of articles taken from the Turkish newspapers Birgün, Gündem, Hurriyet, Cumhurriyet, Milliyet (2013-2019), the English and American periodicals (Newsweek, The Week) both containing more than 300,000 words.

Political collocations with metaphorical components as well as political collocations metaphorized as a whole structure were extracted from the sources mentioned above. To extract collocations from collections of newspaper articles we used  Sketch Engine system (namely, the functions “key words” и “n-gram”), then metaphorical units were selected.

The sample of Turkish collocations meeting the specified requirements (51) is significantly inferior to the corresponding sample of English collocations (102). To a certain extent this can be explained by a more elaborated lexicography on the whole and terminology and terminography in the field of politics in particular in the English and American linguistics in comparison with those in the Turkish one. The extracted collocations structurally fall into three main patterns that are shown in the table (Table 1).

Table 1. The number of metaphorical political collocations under study and their distribution by syntactical patterns

Syntactically, collocations of the pattern Adj+N, Part+N both in English and Turkish represent combinations of nominal character of attributive-prepositive type with adjoinment that are characterized by the absence of any morphological expression of syntactical relation between the kernel component and the dependent one. This relation is expressed due to the order of placement of the components where the dependent element precedes the kernel one [1, P.102], e.g. political arena – siyasi arena  

However, there is a substantial difference between English and Turkish collocations with the structure N+N. Though in both languages collocations of the given pattern are made up according to the attribituve prepositive type with adjoinment as described above, the Turkish collocation in most cases represents the so-called isafet phrase of the second type (one-affix isafet), with the kernel component getting an additional affix, e.g. mülteci ‘refugee’ + akın ‘flow’ = mülteci akını ‘refugee flow’. Moreover, due to the category of number and case in Turkish nouns the kernel component of any collocation can take corresponding affixes, e.g. mozayik toplumlar ‘mosaic communities’ (pl., the Nominative case), mozayik toplumda ‘in a mosaic community’ (sing., the Locative case), etc.

In the next section we will dwell upon the possible variants of collocations of the given type depending on the degree of their metaphorization, the place of metaphor in the collocation and consider combinatory properties of these units and their components.

Results and discussion

The semantic analysis of the sample collection makes it possible to divide the extracted collocations into the following groups: 1) partially metaphorized colocations in which one of the components has a metaphorical meaning and the other has a literal meaning (L+M and M+L) or a metonymic meaning (M+m); 2) fully metaphorized collocations that contain two metaphors or are metaphorized as a whole unit (M=L+L and M2<=M1). A detailed discussion of the patterns will be presented below.

Table 2. The main structural semantic patterns of attributive-substantive metaphorical collocations.

1. The first component is used in the metaphorical meaning and the second component is used in the literal meaning (L+M or M+L)

1a. In collocations with the structure M+L the first component is used metaphorically while the second one has a literal meaning. The kernel components (from a syntactical viewpoint) in collocations of the given pattern are political terms capable of independent functioning; some of these terms may form other terminological collocations (incuding metaphorical), e.g.  banana republic, satellite state, buffer state, etc. There are also some cases where a dependent component possesses limited though not single compatibility, e.g. zirve diplomasisi ‘summit diplomacy’, zirve toplantısı ‘summit meeting’. However, it can be noted that adjuncts (dependent components) of these collocations are also terms.

The group of collocations of M+L structure proved to be the most numerous, especially for the English sample (40 of 102). It turned out that most of Turkish collocations of the given pattern have their equivalents in English, e.g. zirve diplomasisi/ summit diplomacy, sıcak çatışma / hot conflict, etc. This leads us to the suggestion that these collocations were probably borrowed to Turkish from English: the terms rendered from English by means of loan-translation have gradually become fully-fledged units of Turkish political terminology and communication.

There were a small number of Turkish collocations that do not have entries in dictionaries but are in active use in political mediatexts. For example, baskın seçim ‘early election aimed at catching the opposition at a weak moment’ (lit. baskın ‘a raid, a sudden attack’)), havuz medyası (lit. “pool media”) – a group of mass media covering the events to the benefit of the authorities:

Havuz medyası ne yazarsa yazsın, oradaki kalemlere de acıyorum. Kalemini iktidara kiralayan insandan yazar olmaz [16]. / No matter what the pool media write, I feel pity for their reporters. The person who is hired by the authorities would not make a writer.

İktidarın işleri hızla kötüye gidiyordu ve bunu durduramayacaklarını bildikleri için zaman geçirmeden baskın seçime gitmeye mecbur kaldılar [21]. / The situation was worsening for the government, and knowing that they could not stop it they had to undertake a snap election without delay.

It can be observed that meanings of such collocations are not clear to people of other cultures without special explanation. Collocations of this kind are known as ethnocultural and represent combinations of words reflecting socially significant realities for a certain ethnic group, in other words, containing national-cultural specificity that impedes their understanding by representatives of other linguocultures [3], [5], [6]. On the other hand, the meanings of word combinations belonging to political lexicon may represent some difficulty even for a native speaker who does not have background knowledge for proper interpretation of such units. For example, a semantic interpretation of the collocation donkey vote (N1+N2) can be presented as follows: ‘N2 is produced in the way it could be done by N1’. However, even though the recipient knows that the lexeme “donkey” contains a potential connotative seme ‘stupid/ dumb’ this information is still not enough to get the meaning of the whole collocation (that is ‘a vote in which the voter simply ranks each candidate in the order that they have appeared on the ballot paper (or in reverse order from bottom to top’).

Among English collocations of this group the number of ethnocultural units was 22 (of 40), e.g. carousel retaliation – in a trade dispute, especially between the United States and the European Union, the imposition of high import tariffs on a list of imports that is changed regularly to widen the effect [18], maiden speech  - the first speech a legislator gives, which is often a non-controversial tribute to the politician’s state or district, and often pays tribute to his or her predecessor [27], etc.

Prevailing metaphors in the given group are artifact metaphor (e.g. blanket primary, soapbox oratory, shuttle diplomacy/ mekik diplomasisi, open door politics/ açık kapı politikası) and nature-morphic metaphor mainly with a source domain “natural phenomena” (e.g. jungle primary, wave election, stump speech, summit diplomacy/ zirve diplomasisi, satellite state/ uydu devlet). Taking into account the dependent position of the metaphorical component its function is mainly confined to describing the qualities of some political phenomenon or process and thus is restricted to the collocation without extending to a wider context.

1b Collocations of the second group have the structure L+M where the first component (syntactically dependent) is used in the literal meaning and the second component (the headword, the kernel component) is used metaphorically. Terminological components in collocations of this type though syntactically dependent, play an important semantic part in making up the meaning of the collocation as a whole because they characterize one of the aspects of a notion, phenomenon or a process expressed by these terms.

The group contains a number of collocations universal for the two languages (which have also may have originated from the English political lexicon), e.g.  political suicide/ siyasi intihar, election marathon / seçim maratonu, ethnic cleansing/ etnik temizlik, electoral threshold/ seçim baraji, etc.  The former example is of particular interest from the point of cross-language matches, for it is not verbatim (word-by-word) but equivalent rendering. The first meaning of the English lexeme threshold  is ‘the plank, stone, or piece of timber that lies under a door’ while the first meaning of the Turkish lexeme baraj is ‘embankment’, so we are dealing with different manifestations of the same metaphorical model (artifact) or, in terms of cognitive linguistics, different slots of the same frame.

The analysis of contexts the collocations of this group are used in shows possibility of semantic development of metaphors they contain. Let us consider one of the examples: election marathon / seçim maratonu. The semantic interpretation of this collocation (N2 + N1) can be represented as N1 for/ in holding N2. The terminological component election / seçim and the kernel component expressed by the lexeme marathon / maraton share such semes as ‘a continious action’, ‘a competition’. Now let us look at the contexts of this metaphorical collocation in the examples taken from national corpora:

1. (Tur.) Her türlü önleme karşın tehlikeli olmaya başlamış bir seçim maratonu da ufuktaysa, hele bir de iktidarı yitirme ihtimali varsa, ne yapsın? (TUD) / If the election marathon is on the horizon, but he can lose power, what should he do?

2. (Eng.) But like the Saudi sheep story, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold yarn doesn't have the legs to outrun the neck-and-neck two ponies drag race of the gruelling 2017 election marathon (NOW).

The research shows that the most popular verbs the Turkish collocation seçim maratonu combines with are başlamak ‘to begin’ and bitmek ‘to end’. In the sentence given above the semantics of the first component of the collocation obviously dominates while the meaning of the second component is not actualized. The expression ‘be (appear) on the horizon’ is used metaphorically; however, it does not extend the metaphor “election is a marathon”.

As for the English collocation election marathon, the metaphor is often expanded into a wider context with the help of the verb to run (also used metaphorically) and its derivatives, such as “run for election marathon”, “frontrunners in the election marathon” and even longer phrases as in the example above.

Another example of a universal collocation is migrant flow / mülteci akını (göçmen akını)

1. (Tur.) Öte yandan, İran Resmi Haber Ajansı IRNA, Tahran yönetiminin, olası bir mülteci akınını önlemek için Afganistan ile olan sınırını kapatacağını bildirdi (TUD). / On the other hand, Iran's Official News Agency IRNA says Tehran’s administration will close its border with Afghanistan to prevent a possible migrant flow.

2. (Eng.) By the end of the week, President Trump backed off his earlier threat of tariffs on Mexico (taxes on the American taxpayer) if they didn’t stop migrant flow (NOW).

The analysis of concordances shows that the Turkish collocation mülteci akını combines with such verbs as azalmak ‘to decrease’, olmak ‘to occur’, durdurmak ‘to stop’, önlemek ‘to prevent’. The English collocation migrant flow shows a wider combinatory potential collocating with the verbs to stop, to curb, to control, to cut, to reduce, to halt, to stem, to slow, to dry up, to increase. At the first sight, the lexeme flow in combination with the lexeme water might have the same syntagmatic qualities. However, the contextual analysis shows that besides the combinations with the verbs to increase, to reduce, to stop that collocations migrant flow and water flow have in common, the collocation water flow enters into syntagmatic relations with the verbs to restore, to maintain, to regulate. So, it can be concluded that in contrast to water flow the collocation migrant flow is mainly negative in connotation which makes it compatible with verbs containing the semes “finishing an action”, “causation of finishing an action”.

 The number of ethnocultural collocations in this group is not large. Let us provide the examples:

1. (Eng.) Presidential fever – ‘a strong desire for presidency’

Thein Nyunt, a member of the NLD for 22 years who split with the party when Suu Kyi called for a boycott of the 2010 election, accuses her of having "presidential fever" without a strong record of developing policy proposals in parliament.

2. (Tur.) Devlet kapısı / ‘government agencies/ bodies’ (lit. ‘state door/gate’)

Bu yüzden, yetenekli gençlerimiz iş hayatında meslek aramaktan çok, devlet kapısına başvurmayı tercih ediyorlardı (TUD). / Therefore, our talented young people preferred to apply to government agencies (“the state gate”) rather than seeking a job in business life.

Analyzing the contexts we found out that the form of the Dative case of  the collocation (devlet kapısına – to/ for government agencies) combines with the following verbs: girmek ‘enter’, gitmek ‘go’, yollamak ‘send’ dayanmak – ‘rely on’ (in its literal sense the verb also has the meaning of ‘lean upon’ so we can say that the “door” metaphor is supported by the syntagmatic environment of the unit. However, the use of the collocation in the Locative case (devlet kapısında ‘in government bodies/agencies’ semantic "center of gravity" of the collocation shifts to the first component, which is manifested through such combinations as görevi bırakmak ‘to retire’, memur olmak ‘to work as a civil servant’, iş bulmak ‘to find a job’, didinmek ‘to work hard’. Nevertheless the given collocation is sure to leave a space for metaphor extention as we can see in the following example:

Biz gideriz devlet kapısına, kapının üstünde şöyle yazar: GİRİLMEZ! Yahut da İŞİ OLMAYAN GİREMEZ... / We go to ‘the state gate’ and there is a sign [on it]: NO ENTRY! Or NO ENTRY FOR THE UNEMPLOYED…(TUD).

As the above examples suggest, the collocations of the given group (L+M) contain metaphors of all the four key source domains (‘nature”, “man”, “community”, “artifact”) whereas the statistic data show that the prevailing source domains are “sport” (in both languages), “theatre” (in English) and “house/ building” (in Turkish), thus proving the sociomorphic and artifact metaphors to prevail in this group.

2. The whole collocation is used metaphorically (has a metaphorical meaning) (М=L1+L2 и М2<=М1)

This group is composed of collocations metaphorized by a single structure that is, when two non-metaphorical components form a free phrase that has a direct meaning in a natural language, which can also be used as a political term but in a metaphorical meaning (М=L1+L2). Here we also attribute those cases when a metaphor existing in a natural language (or in another terminological system) is transferred to the political sphere (M2 <= M1), for example, the collocation я cattle call – ‘the audition process in which a large number of usually inexperienced performers try out for a limited number of roles for a performance’ was borrowed into political lexicon in the meaning of ‘a public gathering of potential presidential candidates early in the primary season’. The opposite process is also possible, when a political collocation formed from a rethought free phrase becomes common, acquiring new shades of meaning. Since such transitions are rather difficult to track, and since each political collocation was, in one way or another, originally a phrase not related to politics, we attribute them to the same structural-semantic group.

According to our classification the collocations of this group are “term-forming” because they acquire terminological meaning only in combination with each other [10]. Such collocations are more difficult to extract due to the lack of a terminological element in their composition; they often have an author or an event that caused the emergence of this unit in the language of politics. Most collocations of this model are ethnocultural and therefore have certain connotations.

For English collocations this is the second largest group including 35 units that contain metaphors from various source domains:1) “animal world” (naturemorphic metaphor) - attack dog ‘an aggressive supporter or spokesperson for a politician or political party’(Collin), stalking horse ‘a candidate put forward in an election to conceal an anonymous person’s potential candidacy’ [27], old bull ‘a powerful and influential Member of Congress’ [27]; 2) “house/ building” (artifact metaphor) - kitchen cabinet ‘a private, unofficial committee of ministers, advisers and friends who advise some Prime Ministers or Presidents’ (Collin), boiler room ‘a political (campaign) headquarters [26]; 3) “love and sexual relations” (antropomorphic metaphor) - strange bedfellows ‘an unusual political alliance’ [27]; 4) “cinema”, “theatre”, “sport and games” (sociomorphic metaphor) - plot twist, trial balloon – ‘an idea suggested by a politician in order to observe the reaction’ [27]. Further analysis showed the predominance of collocations with naturemorphic metaphors (10 out of 35) in this group borrowed from such source domains as “animal world”, “plant world”, and “natural phenomena”.

A small number of metaphorical collocations of this type obtained from Turkish lexicographical sources are represented by historicisms that are rarely used in modern political discourse, e.g., bol elbise ‘a loose dress’ (about the first Turkish Constitution that Atatürk compared to a dress that was too loose for the Turkish people [13], bahar havası ‘spring weather’= ‘good, pleasant, friendly atmosphere/ ‘ (a reference made to the period of  1947-1957 characterized by relatively friendly relationship between   the Democratic Party (Demokrat Parti) and the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) [13]. There has also been found a collocation relevant for the modern political communication: eski tüfek ‘an experiences politician (lit. – ‘an old gun’)’ [30].

In order to find out whether these metaphorical collocations have gained a foothold in political discourse, an analysis of the contexts of attack dog and eski tüfek uses in the Corpus of Contemporary American English  (COCA) and the Turkish National Corpus (TNC/TUD) was attempted. It turned out that out of 125 uses of attack dog only 15 had a direct meaning, 97 were used as political collocations and the remaining 13 had metaphorical meaning though not in political contexts or it was impossible to identify the context as political.

1. They start across the street. The chained attack dog hurls himself at the fence, which bulges and rattles its metal links (COCA, 2005)

2. He will probably be the chief attack dog of the Democratic Party (COCA, 2001)

3. Like an attack dog, the beetle bites and shakes its head, shredding the woolly cocoon (COCA, 2007)

As we can see in the examples above, the meaning of the collocation in Sentence 1 is obviously literal, in Sentence 2 it is metaphorical and political, while in Sentence 3 it has a metaphorical meaning though does not seem to refer to politics.

As for the Turkish collocation eski tüfek, out of 33 uses in the Turkish National Corpus (TUD), the ratio of political uses of the collocation to non-political turned out to be 14 to 19; wherein 16 units had a metaphorical meaning and 3 units were used literally. Moreover, the use of the given collocation in political contexts showed a marked tendency of its being used in the attributive function with such nouns as solcu ‘left’, sosyalist ‘socialist’, komünist ‘communist’ and others, thus functioning as a semantically integral unit.

The evidence from this study suggests that in comparison with collocations comprising this group free word combinations with the same expression form are used much more rarely. This may confirm the hypothesis about the tendency of metaphorical meanings of collocations to “crowd out” non-metaphorical uses [20]. At the same time, we cannot underestimate the fact that it is the media discourse that is currently the most popular form of language existence, as a result of which the number of uses of metaphorical collocations in media texts may exceed the number of free phrases with identical lexical composition in general discourse.

3. Both components of a collocation are metaphors (М1+М2).

This model is represented by a small number of collocations including two independent metaphorical components. These units differ from collocations with complete metaphorization, firstly, by the absence of free word  combinations with the same expression form and, secondly, by the containing metaphors from different source domains or representing different slots of the same frame.

For example, landslide victory ‘an election success with a very large majority’ [18] includes metaphors from the source domain “nature” (landslide) and “war” (victory); sleeper cell ‘a group of trained terrorists who live ordinary lives while waiting for instructions to commit a terrorist act’ [18] contains metaphors from different slots of the domain “nature”.

 The Turkish collocation hizmet yarışı – lit. ‘service competition’ is used ironically referring to government officials, that is to people holding or seeking leadership positions. The word hizmet means ‘service’, yarış – ‘competition’, so the collocation contains metaphors from different slots of the source domain “society”.

4. Metaphorical collocations with a metonymic component (М+m)

Based on the studied linguistic material, we have revealed another structural semantic model. The analysis of such collocations as Shadow cabinet - Gölge Kabine, green paper, kangaroo ticket shows that though only one of their components has a metaphorical meaning, the second element is not used literally but represents a metonymy (М+m). While in generating and decoding a  metaphor two different conceptual spheres are involved, in case of metonymy the name is transferred from one of the elements to another within the same conceptual sphere [8]. Such components can be defined as consubstantial terms formed by means of metonymic transfer. Such collocations as seat / sandalye ‘chair’ in the meaning of  ‘membership in the Parliament’, cabinet/ kabine in the meaning of ‘a group of people’, ticket  in the meaning of ‘a list of candidates of a party’ are well-established political terms fixed in the language.

Conclusion

The findings of this study prove that metaphorical collocations are an important and integral part of the language of politics. According to the degree of metaphorization of collocation and the place of the metaphorical component in collocations with incomplete metaphorization, several structural-semantic models with certain features are distinguished among attributive-substantive collocations. While the M + L model is characterized by the highest frequency, L + M has a greater degree of versatility as compared to other models and the possibilities of semantic development of the metaphors they contain, and the models M = L + L and M2 <= M1 are characterized by a high concentration of ethnocultural units.

Among the sources of metaphorical expansion in all the presented collocation groups the most productive are categories “nature” (“animal world”, “plant world”), “society” (“sport”, “theater”) and “house, building”. A slight discrepancy is observed for collocations of the L + M model: an artifact metaphor dominates in Turkish collocations, while a sociomorphic metaphor predominates in English ones. As it was stated in the Methodology section, in this study we considered conventional metaphors contained in attributive-substantive collocations; it is possible that the analysis of “living” metaphors may demonstrate a different picture.

It should be noted that unlike English lexicographical sources which present not only key political terms and historicisms, but also modern collocations functioning in political discourse, Turkish dictionaries mainly contain universal collocations and nationally specific units that reflect the historical layer of the lexical and phraseological fund of the Turkish language. At present Turkish lexicographers are actively working on developing and compiling collocation dictionaries; dictionaries of political vocabulary and terminology are appearing. We believe that a larger study using a larger volume of texts may reveal a lot of collocations that are relevant for modern Turkish political discourse.