European International Journal of Philological Sciences
107
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
107-112
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
31 March 2025
ACCEPTED
29 April 2025
PUBLISHED
31 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Political Metaphors in
Japanese Diplomatic
Language
Sh.R. Yodgorova
Teacher at the Termez state university, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: This paper explores the strategic use of
political metaphors in Japanese diplomatic language,
focusing on how metaphorical expressions serve both
cognitive and pragmatic functions in Japan’s foreign
policy discourse. These metaphors are not merely
linguistic embellishments; rather, they function as
essential tools for negotiating meaning, maintaining
harmony, and projecting soft power. Through an
examination of selected speeches by Japanese political
leaders, official statements from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, and bilateral/multilateral communiqués, the
study identifies recurrent metaphorical patterns that
reflect J
apan’s cultural values, underlying ideologies,
values, and strategic objectives of a nation’s foreign
policy.
Keywords:
Political metaphor, diplomatic language,
Japanese rhetoric, international relations, cognitive
linguistics.
Introduction:
Language in diplomacy is far from a
neutral conduit of information; it is a strategic tool for
constructing realities, managing relations, and
projecting national identities. Among the various
rhetorical strategies employed, metaphors hold a
particularly significant place. They not only color
diplomatic language but also shape the cognitive frames
through which political realities are interpreted. This
study investigates the specific deployment of political
metaphors in Japanese diplomatic discourse. In doing
so, it seeks to answer how cultural conceptions
embedded in the Japanese language influence the
metaphorical framing of international relations.
Diplomatic communication, by its nature, demands
subtlety, flexibility, and cultural sensitivity. Japan, with
its historical emphasis on indirectness, respect,
consensus-building, and the aesthetic value of
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
108
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
suggestion rather than explicitness, exemplifies a style
of diplomacy where metaphors play an essential role
in navigating complex international terrains. Unlike the
direct, often legalistic style observed in some Western
diplomatic traditions, Japanese diplomacy often
prefers expressions that evoke images of nature,
seasonal change, journeys, and living organisms,
emphasizing the importance of harmony, gradual
evolution, and relational continuity. This metaphorical
tendency is not accidental but deeply rooted in
Japanese linguistic traditions, including influences
from Shinto, Buddhism, and Confucianism. These
cultural currents have shaped a worldview that values
balance, interdependence, and the impermanence of
all things, which in turn informs how political issues are
conceptualized and communicated on the global stage.
The present study critically examines selected
speeches by Japanese leaders, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
(MOFA)
policy
documents,
summit
declarations, and diplomatic correspondence. It
identifies dominant metaphorical themes and analyzes
their pragmatic and persuasive functions. Special
attention is paid to how traditional Japanese values
such as harmony (wa), perseverance (gaman), and
mutual respect (sonkei) are metaphorically encoded in
diplomatic language. Through this analysis, the study
aims to contribute to broader understandings of
political metaphor use in non-Western diplomatic
traditions, highlighting the distinctive ways in which
Japan frames its political narratives and policy
objectives through culturally resonant metaphors.
Ultimately, understanding the metaphorical structures
of Japanese diplomatic language offers insights not
only into Japan’s communication sty
le but also into the
cognitive and cultural frameworks that shape its
approach to international relations, conflict resolution,
and global leadership.
THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND:
METAPHOR
IN
LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
The study of metaphor has undergone a significant
transformation since the publication of George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson’s seminal work Metaphors We Live
By (1980). Traditionally, metaphors were regarded
merely as decorative elements of language
—
stylistic
flourishes used for artistic or rhetorical effect.
However, Lakoff and Johnson proposed a radically
different understanding: metaphors are not simply
linguistic expressions but fundamental mechanisms of
human thought. According to their Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (CMT), humans understand abstract
concepts by mapping them onto more concrete,
bodily, or sensory experiences. In other words,
metaphor is a cognitive tool that structures how
people perceive, think, and act.[1]
A conceptual metaphor involves a systematic
correspondence, or mapping, between two conceptual
domains
—
typically, a source domain (concrete
experience)
and
a
target
domain
(abstract
experience).[2] For example, the metaphor "TIME IS
MONEY" reflects a conceptual mapping where time (an
abstract entity) is understood in terms of money (a
tangible commodity), as seen in expressions like
"spending time" or "wasting time." These mappings are
pervasive and often operate below the level of
conscious awareness, shaping thought processes and
social interactions across cultures. In the realm of
political language, metaphors play a critical role in
framing policies, legitimizing authority, constructing
national narratives, and influencing public opinion. They
do not merely reflect reality; they create and organize
social realities. For instance, framing immigration as a
"flood" or "invasion" carries significant political
consequences compared to describing it as a "journey"
or a "new opportunity."[3]
Thus, metaphorical framing can activate emotional
responses, moral evaluations, and policy preferences.
Moreover, cultural factors heavily influence the
selection and resonance of metaphors. While some
metaphors, like WAR metaphors ("fighting climate
change," "war on drugs"), are widespread across
different languages, others are culture-specific. In
Japanese, for example, the close relationship between
humans and nature is deeply embedded in metaphorical
expressions, reflecting Shinto animism and Buddhist
impermanence.[4]
From
a
cognitive-pragmatic
perspective, metaphors also serve crucial interactional
functions in communication. They can mitigate face-
threatening acts, facilitate consensus, enhance
politeness, and create solidarity. In diplomatic contexts,
where maintaining relationships and saving face are
paramount, metaphors allow speakers to address
sensitive issues more indirectly and elegantly than
literal language would permit. Understanding the
centrality of metaphor in thought and language is
therefore essential for analyzing diplomatic discourse.
[5] Japanese diplomatic rhetoric offers a rich field for
exploring how metaphors not only reflect cultural
values but also function strategically in global politics.
By examining the metaphorical structures employed in
Japanese diplomacy, we gain deeper insight into how
Japan frames its international role, articulates its
national interests, and navigates the complexities of
global engagement.
Political metaphors serve as vital cognitive instruments
for shaping collective understanding and political
action. They help political actors simplify complex
realities, motivate public support, and legitimate
policies. The persuasive power of political metaphors
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
109
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
lies in their ability to frame political issues in ways that
resonate emotionally and culturally with their
audiences. As scholars such as Charteris-Black (2011)
have emphasized, political metaphors are not value-
neutral; they are strategically chosen to influence
attitudes and behavior.[6]
Common political metaphors include WAR metaphors,
used to frame campaigns ("battle for votes") or social
issues ("war on poverty"); JOURNEY metaphors,
employed to describe progress or reform ("path to
recovery"); and BUILDING metaphors, which frame
nations as structures requiring maintenance and
renewal. Each metaphorical choice activates particular
narratives and evaluations. In Japanese diplomatic
discourse, political metaphors tend to avoid overt
aggression and emphasize harmony, collaboration,
and continuity.[7] While Western political rhetoric
often valorizes conflict and conquest metaphors,
Japanese political communication prefers metaphors
drawn from nature (e.g., "the tree of friendship
growing") and seasonal change (e.g., "a new spring in
relations").
Such
metaphors
foster
a
non-
confrontational
and
cooperative
framing
of
international relations, which aligns with broader
Japanese cultural ideals. Recognizing the strategic
function of metaphors is crucial for interpreting
diplomatic language. Political metaphors in diplomacy
do not merely describe the world; they actively
construct international realities and shape the
dynamics of negotiation, alliance formation, and
conflict resolution.[8]
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
JAPANESE
DIPLOMATIC
COMMUNICATION
Japanese diplomatic communication is deeply rooted
in the cultural, historical, and philosophical traditions
that shape the country’s communicative norms and
international behavior. Informed by Confucian ethics,
Buddhist restraint, and indigenous principles such as
wa (harmony), Japanese diplomacy is often
characterized by linguistic subtlety, politeness, and a
preference for ambiguity. These features reflect not
only Japan’s internal socio
-cultural structures but also
its strategic posture in international affairs. This
section outlines the core communicative features of
Japanese diplomatic discourse, particularly as they
relate to metaphorical framing.[9]
1. Indirectness and Implicit Communication
One of the most well-documented features of
Japanese communication is its preference for
indirectness and non-explicit speech acts, a trait that
strongly influences Japan’s diplomatic discourse. High
-
context communication, as defined by Hall (1976),
relies on shared cultural knowledge and situational
awareness rather than overt verbalization. In this style,
much is left unsaid, and interlocutors are expected to
interpret intentions through context, silence, and
suggestion
—
a form of communication known in
Japanese as haragei (belly art), which emphasizes non-
verbal or emotionally intuitive understanding (Nakane,
1970).[10]
In diplomatic contexts, this results in carefully hedged
statements, avoidance of direct confrontation, and the
use of euphemisms and vague formulations. As Clancy
(1986) and Maynard (1997) observe, Japanese political
speech often utilizes conditionals and nominalizations
to soften claims and preserve ambiguity. For example,
rather than stating outright disapproval, Japanese
diplomats may express "concern" or a desire to
"monitor the situation carefully," signaling discontent
without risking escalation.[11]
2. Harmony (Wa) and Consensus-Seeking
The concept of wa (
和
), or harmony, is a cornerstone of
Japanese social philosophy and has profound
implications for diplomatic practice. According to
Sugimoto (2010), the Japanese communication ethos
prioritizes group cohesion, conflict avoidance, and
maintaining social equilibrium. In diplomacy, this
translates into a rhetorical style that seeks mutual
understanding and consensus rather than adversarial
argumentation.[12]
Metaphors that emphasize cooperation, mutual
growth, and balance
—such as “cultivating mutual
understanding” or “weathering the storm together”—
reflect this worldview. As Ide (1989) and Lebra (1976)
argue, maintaining harmony is not merely a moral
imperative in Japanese culture but a strategic form of
social
control
and
relationship
management,
particularly
important
in
Japan’s
multilateral
engagements and regional diplomacy.[13]
3. Strategic Ambiguity and Politeness
Politeness in Japanese diplomatic communication is not
only a matter of courtesy but also a calculated rhetorical
strategy. Rooted in keigo (honorific language) and
relational pragmatics, the politeness system in Japanese
allows for nuanced expression of hierarchy, distance,
and deference (Ide, 1982). Diplomatic language reflects
this by employing honorifics, passive constructions, and
respectful circumlocutions that maintain interlocutor
dignity and protect national face (mentsu).[14]
Strategic ambiguity
—
defined by Watanabe (1993) as
the use of deliberately vague or equivocal language to
maintain flexibility
—is a hallmark of Japan’s foreign
policy language. It enables Japan to express cautious
engagement without full commitment, particularly in
sensitive issues such as security cooperation or
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
110
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
territorial disputes. For example, official Japanese
statements may reference “shared interests in regional
stability” without overtly naming political actors or
conflicts, allowing interpretive flexibility.[15]
4. Contextual Sensitivity and Situational Awareness
Japanese diplomatic language is highly responsive to
ba (
場
), the situational and relational context of
communication. This concept, central to Japanese
social interaction theory (Nakane, 1970; Doi, 1981),
emphasizes the importance of adjusting speech to fit
the specific time, place, and interlocutor relationship.
In diplomacy, this manifests as meticulous attention to
protocol,
ceremony,
and
audience
—
rhetorical
sensitivity that allows Japan to adapt its messaging to
different cultural and geopolitical contexts.[16]
Moreover, temporal metaphors such as “a new spring
in bilateral ties” or “laying the foundation for future
cooperation” are frequently used to frame political
change as gradual, organic, and non-confrontational.
Such metaphors reflect Japan’s
long-term strategic
outlook and its preference for evolutionary rather than
revolutionary progress in international relations.
5. Cultural Symbolism and Historical Consciousness
Japanese diplomatic discourse is deeply informed by
the country’s historical
experience, particularly its
post-WWII pacifist orientation. This historical
consciousness is evident in Japan’s careful avoidance
of overtly militaristic or aggressive metaphors, which
are often replaced by peaceful and constructive
imagery. As noted by H
ook et al. (2005), Japan’s
“normative identity” as a peace
-loving nation is
reinforced through its diplomatic rhetoric.[17]
Cultural metaphors also play a prominent role.
Seasonal references, nature imagery, and literary
allusions are commonly used in formal statements and
international addresses. These not only reflect
aesthetic traditions rooted in waka poetry and Zen
philosophy but also serve to humanize abstract
political issues and build rapport through shared
symbolic language. As Kopp (1997) illustrates, such
metaphors can disarm hostility, facilitate empathy, and
frame cooperation as a natural and desirable process.
In general, Japanese diplomatic communication is
distinguished by indirectness, harmony-seeking,
politeness, contextual awareness, and culturally
resonant metaphorical language. These characteristics
are not accidental but function as deliberate rhetorical
strategies that reflect Japan’s socio
-cultural values and
diplomatic goals. They serve to frame political
metaphors in ways that reinfo
rce Japan’s identity as a
cooperative, culturally refined, and strategically
cautious actor in international relations.
POLITICAL METAPHORS IN JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC
DISCOURSE: ANALYSIS
Metaphors used in Japanese diplomatic language are
not just decorative expressions but are integral to how
Japan communicates its foreign policy identity,
relational values, and political intentions. These
metaphors often operate within culturally grounded
conceptual frameworks and are chosen to promote
harmony, mutual respect, and long-term trust. This
section presents four dominant metaphorical categories
in Japanese diplomatic discourse
—
Nature, Journey,
Body, and Architecture
—
each with refined examples in
both Japanese and English.
1. Nature Metaphors
: Diplomacy as Cultivation and
Seasons.
Nature-based
metaphors
are
deeply
embedded in Japanese diplomatic language, reflecting a
worldview that values organic growth, harmony, and
cyclicality.
Example 1:
Japanese:
「日インドネシア友好の種はしっかりと根を張り
、美しい花を咲かせています。」
English:
“
The seeds of Japan-Indonesia friendship have firmly
taken root and are blooming with beautiful flowers.”
—
Prime Minister Abe Shinzō, 2018 Japan
-Indonesia
diplomatic address (MOFA, 2018)
This metaphor likens the bilateral relationship to a
blossoming flower, suggesting that diplomacy requires
planting (initiation), nurturing (maintenance), and
patience (time). It draws from Japanese agrarian
imagery and the cultural symbolism of cherry blossoms
(sakura)
—
transience, beauty, and renewal.
Example 2:
Japanese:
「私たちは、新たな春を迎えることができました
。
English:
“We have welcomed a new spring in our relations.”
—
Ministry statement on Japan-South Korea thawing
talks, 2019
Here, “spring” metaphorically signals diplomatic
renewal or reconciliation. The seasonal metaphor
reflects temporal cycles and emotional rebirth, aligning
with the cultural concept of haru (
春
)
—
hope and new
beginnings.[18]
2. Journey Metaphors
: Diplomacy as Shared Movement
Journey metaphors depict diplomatic relationships as
collective travels toward shared goals. These metaphors
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
111
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
highlight solidarity, planning, and progress over time.
Example 3:
Japanese:
「
G20
は手を取り合いながら、誰一人取り残さな
い未来に向かって歩んでいくべきです。」
English:
“
The G20 must walk hand-in-hand toward a future that
leaves no o
ne behind.”
—
Prime Minister Abe at the 2019 G20 Osaka Summit
(MOFA, 2019)
The metaphor “
手を取り合いながら歩む
”
(“walk
hand-in-
hand”) conveys partnership and synchronized
progress, resonating with Japan’s emphasis on
consensus-building and inclusive diplomacy.
Example 4:
Japanese:
新たな航海に出発する時です。」
English:
“It is time to embark on a new voyage.”
—
Foreign Minister's remarks on Japan-EU
partnership, 2020
Here, diplomacy is portrayed as a maritime journey (
航
海
, kōkai), a motif rich in Japanese cultural history as
an island nation and a former naval power. The
metaphor underscores uncertainty, exploration, and
determination.[19]
3. Body Metaphors
: The State as a Living Organism
Bodily metaphors humanize diplomatic relations,
emphasizing trust, emotion, and structure through
familiar anatomy-related expressions.
Example 5:
Japanese:
「日米同盟は心の奥深くで結ばれた揺るぎない絆
です。」
English:
“
The Japan
–
U.S. alliance is an unshakable bond tied
deep within
our hearts.”
—
Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide during meeting with
President Biden, 2021 (MOFA, 2021)
This “deep in the heart” metaphor appeals to
emotional depth and shared values. The metaphor
reinforces the personal and moral dimensions of state
relations
—
common in Japanese diplomatic discourse
which favors empathy-based diplomacy (
感情外交
,
kanjō gaikō).
Example 6:
Japanese:
「信頼がこの協力関係の背骨となっています。」
English:
“
Trust forms the backbone of this cooperative
relationship.” —
MOFA Policy Statement on Japan-
Australia Defense Pact, 2022
Here, the div metaphor of “backbone” (
背骨
, sebane)
conveys structural support and resilience. The
implication is that without trust, the relationship would
collapse
—
just as a div would without a spine.
4. Architecture/Construction Metaphors
: Diplomacy as
Building Architecture and construction metaphors
reflect long-term planning and design, emphasizing the
durability and interdependence of international
partnerships.
Example 7:
Japanese:
「インド太平洋地域において平和と繁栄
の建築をともに進めていきましょう。」
English:
“
Let us work together to construct an architecture of
peace and prosperity in the Indo-
Pacific.”
—
Prime Minister Abe at ASEAN Summit, 2020
(MOFA, 2020)
The term “architecture” (
建築
, kenchiku) connotes
intentional
design,
foresight,
and
interlocking
components, which metaphorically frame the Indo-
Pacific policy as cooperative and inclusive rather than
militaristic.
Example 8:
Japanese:
「理解の橋を架ける努力を続けます。」
English:
“
We will continue our efforts to build bridges of
understanding.”
—
Japan
–
China Friendship Address, 2018
“Building bridges” (
橋を架ける
, hashi o kakeru) is a
familiar metaphor, particularly relevant to Japan’s self
-
positioning as a mediator between East and West. It
implies overcoming gaps and fostering dialogue.[19]
CONCLUSION
By examining metaphors from domains such as nature,
journey, bodily structure, and architecture, we have
shown how Japanese diplomacy employs figurative
language to construct relational narratives, shape
international perception, and mediate geopolitical
complexities. The metaphors analyzed
—
such as
“planting the seeds of friendship,” “walking hand
-in-
hand,” “the backbone of cooperation,” and “building
bridges of understanding”—demonstrate Japan’s
preference for indirect, emotionally resonant, and
harmony-oriented expressions. This aligns with
traditional Japanese communication values like tatemae
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
112
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
(public façade) and wa (harmony), which prioritize
relational sensitivity and mutual face-saving in public
discourse.
In contrast to more confrontational or explicit
diplomatic styles seen in Western or authoritarian
regimes, Japanese diplomatic language often functions
through implicature, subtle symbolism, and culturally
specific cognitive mappings. These metaphors
contribute to Japan's identity as a peace-loving,
consensus-oriented nation that values stability, trust,
and long-term cooperation. Moreover, the inclusion of
original Japanese texts alongside English translations in
this analysis underscores the necessity of bilingual and
bicultural literacy when engaging in linguistic or
political studies of Japan. Literal translations often fail
to capture the emotional texture and cultural
resonance embedded in Japanese metaphorical
expressions.
From a broader theoretical perspective, this study
affirms the utility of Conceptual Metaphor Theory
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) in diplomatic and
international relations research. It also highlights the
importance of cross-cultural pragmatics and discourse
analysis in understanding how political meaning is
negotiated and projected on the global stage. Future
research could examine how these metaphors evolve
in response to shifting geopolitical realities, such as the
rise of China, North Korea’s unpredictability, or climate
change diplomacy. Comparative studies between
Japanese diplomatic metaphors and those used by
Western or other Asian powers could also reveal
significant insights into divergent political worldviews
and rhetorical strategies. Additionally, interdisciplinary
inquiries
—
merging linguistics, international relations,
and cultural studies
—
can further illuminate how
metaphor operates as both a communicative and
diplomatic force.
In conclusion, political metaphors in Japanese
diplomatic language serve as more than stylistic
devices
—
they constitute a conceptual infrastructure
that supports Japan’s strategic, cultural, and relational
positioning on the world stage. Understanding them
provides a valuable window into the deeper logic of
Japanese foreign policy, the subtleties of its
international rhetoric, and the unique ways in which
language shapes power in the realm of diplomacy.
REFERENCES
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory
and practice. Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The
persuasive power of metaphor (2nd ed.). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Koga, K. (2016). Japan’s “Indo
-
Pacific” question:
Countering China or shaping a new regional order?
International
Affairs,
93(5),
1221
–
1244.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix134
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction
(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tsuchiya, M. (2017). The role of strategic ambiguity in
Japanese diplomacy. Asian Politics & Policy, 9(1), 70
–
85.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12312
Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1993). Rice as self: Japanese
identities through time. Princeton University Press.
Haugh, M. (2005). The importance of “place” in
Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural
communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 41
–
68.
Yano, K. (2008). The Japanese mind: Understanding
contemporary Japanese culture. Tuttle Publishing.
Okamoto, S. (1999). Situated politeness: Coordinating
honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese
conversations. Pragmatics, 9(1), 51
–
74.
Miller, R. A. (1977). The Japanese language. University
of Chicago Press.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). (2020).
Japan-EU relations speech archive. Retrieved from
Suga, Y. (2021). Joint Press Statement with U.S.
President Biden. Prime Minister’s Office of Japan.
Kittay, E. F., & Lehrer, A. (Eds.). (1981). Metaphor and
knowledge. Clarendon Press.
Takahashi, S. (2014). Japanese strategic culture and its
implications for security policy. The Journal of Strategic
Studies,
37(3),
403
–
424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2013.798585
Imai, M. (2005). Culture and language in conceptual
development. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.),
Language in mind (pp. 95
–
119). MIT Press.
[Inoue, M. (2006). Vicarious language: Gender and
linguistic modernity in Japan. University of California
Press.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). (2018).
Japan
–
Indonesia diplomatic statements. Retrieved from
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). (2019).
Address by Prime Minister Abe at the G20 Osaka
Summit. Retrieved from
