Lexical Representation of Culturonyms in American Political Discourse: A Case Study of George W. Bush’s Presidential Rhetoric
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69760/egjlle.2603004Keywords:
culturonyms, political discourse, linguoculturology, lexical semantics, critical discourse analysis, American political rhetoric, conceptual metaphorAbstract
Culturonyms — lexical units that encode culturally specific concepts, values, and realities — constitute a privileged site for the linguistic analysis of political discourse, since they reveal how language mobilizes shared cultural meanings to construct identity, legitimize policy, and shape collective perception. This article examines the lexical representation of culturonyms in American presidential political discourse through a case study of the rhetoric of George W. Bush, whose two-term presidency (2001–2009) produced a distinctive and widely documented body of politically consequential language. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of linguoculturology, critical discourse analysis, and conceptual metaphor theory, the study develops a classification of the culturonyms characteristic of this discourse — politionyms, ideologonyms, ethnonyms and toponyms, religionyms, and militaronyms — and analyzes the lexical-semantic mechanisms through which they function. The analysis demonstrates that culturonyms operate as condensed carriers of cultural and ideological meaning, deploying binary moral framing, religious-providential register, and metaphorical conceptualization to construct a particular vision of national identity and international order. The study argues that the analysis of culturonyms offers a methodologically productive approach to understanding the interface between language, culture, and power in political discourse, and contributes to the broader fields of linguoculturology and political linguistics. All linguistic examples discussed are drawn from the public record and from the existing scholarly literature on this period of American political rhetoric.
References
Aziz, S. (2025). The Bifurcation of Linguistic Mediation: A Critical Inquiry into the Epistemological and Ethical Divergence of Translation and Interpretation. Porta Universorum, 1(10), 156-164. https://doi.org/10.69760/portuni.0110016
Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Hajiyeva, B. (2024). Exploring the Infinite Regress of Defining Words: A Critical Analysis of Semantic Methodologies. Global Spectrum of Research and Humanities , 1(1), 121-126. https://doi.org/10.69760/gsrh.01012024011
Ismayilli, F. (2025). Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Number-Based Idioms in English and Azerbaijani. Global Spectrum of Research and Humanities, 2(5), 115-123.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Maslova, V. A. (2001). Lingvokulturologiya [Linguoculturology]. Akademiya.
Sadigzadeh, Z. (2024). Interplay of linguistic relativism and universalism. Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi, 11(3), 1750-1758.
Silberstein, S. (2004). War of words: Language, politics and 9/11. Routledge.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11–52). John Benjamins.
Vorobyev, V. V. (2008). Lingvokulturologiya [Linguoculturology]. RUDN Publishing.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article published under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
