On the analysis of A. Lincoln’s discourse

Volume 1, Number 2, P. 25–28


Article (file: pdf, size: 159 KB)


The tendency in most countries of the western intellectual tradition is to dissociate language and experience in such a way that language is seen as rather neutral, merely serving to ‘carry’ fruits of experience. Viewed in this way, language is seen as a kind of ‘conduit’, subservient to experience in various ways. The alternative view, as propounded in Foucault’s method of analyzing historical texts, would argue that language itself is not only a part of experience, but intimately involved in the manner in which we construct and organize experience. As such, it is never neutral, but deeply implicated in building the meaning. The biblical metaphors which are numerous in A. Lincoln’s discourse played a great role. The article provides analysis of the metaphors from Lincoln’s speeches based on the theories of Michel Foucault.


discourse, metaphor, interpretation, the Bible, strategy, belief, context


Shadaeva Lada I., Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages Department №1 for Engineering Fields of Study, Irkutsk National Research Technical University, Irkutsk, Russia


  1. Гинес А. Вавилонская башня // Иностранная литература. 1996. № 9. С. 10–216.
  2. Концептуальная систематика аргументации: коллективная монография / Г. М. Костюшкина, А.В. Колмогорова, Н.С. Баребина, С.Ю. Дашкова, Е.О. Ильичева, Т.В. Нешева, О.В. Ситосанова М.: Флинта: Наука, 2015. 592 с.
  3. Линкольн А. Речи и Письма 1832-1858.: сборник. Нью-Йорк: Библиотека Америки, 1989. 680 с.
  4. Минский М. Фреймы для представления знаний. М.: Энергия, 1979. 151 с.
  5. Новая американская библия. Нью-Йорк: Компания издательства католической литературы, 1977. 1451 с.
  6. Серль Дж. Р. Классификация иллокутивных актов // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. М.: Прогресс, 1986. Вып.17. С. 195–222.
  7. Фуко М. Археология знания. 2-е изд. испр. СПб.: Гуманит. Акад., 2012. 208 с.
  8. Хинтикка Я. Логико-эпистемологическое исследования. М.: Прогресс, 1980. 441 с.