The functioning of metaphor and epithet in diplomatic rhetoric

Abstract

The article investigates how the metaphor and the epithet function in public diplomatic rhetoric – speeches, statements and communiqués addressed to the public. The approach builds a coherent and explicit theoretical framework (Aristotle, Plato, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Ivor Richards, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Max Black) and unambiguously delimits the analyzed sphere – public communication, distinct from the language of negotiations. The methodology is qualitative, based on discourse analysis, applied to an indicative corpus of approximately 20 fragments of European and transatlantic public diplomatic speeches, diplomatic communiqués, and official declarations (2021–2025). The unit of analysis is the stylistic device – metaphor/epithet and its immediate contexts. The results show three recurring families of metaphorical framings (institutional personification, strategic orientation, and temporalities) and a stable set of argumentative epithets (unjustified, fragile, vital, legitimate, unacceptable, overwhelming) that calibrate value positions and designate the red lines. The discussion highlights the role of these figures of speech in clarifying messages, managing sensitivities, and avoiding rhetorical escalation, as well as the limits of the study (indicative corpus; lack of quantitative testing).