As a key genre of motivational discourse, the commencement speech relies on a stable set of conceptual metaphors to achieve its pragmatic impact. This study aims to identify and systematize the key metaphorical models that structure this genre, using a cognitive-discursive approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods. The material includes speeches delivered by prominent Anglo-American speakers (politicians, actors, comedians, writers, singers, entrepreneurs, scientists) as well as two Russian-speaking writers (A. Solzhenitsyn and I. Brodsky), to graduates of universities in the USA and the UK in the 20th and 21st centuries. Apart from fully lexicalized ontological and orientational metaphors, twelve major groups of structural metaphors were identified, based on the following source domains (in descending frequency): journey, construction, game, war, teaching, books, machines, plants, animals, food, health/medicine, light and darkness. Special attention is paid to the correlation between speakers’ professional identity and the metaphors they use. The article examines both conventional and original metaphorical expressions that verbalize conceptual mappings. The analysis reveals that these metaphorical models shape the discursive practices of this genre within the broader framework of motivational discourse. The results demonstrate that metaphors not only render complex abstract ideas – such as success and failure, moral values, lessons from the past, personal and global goals – more accessible and vivid, but also serve to strengthen the speaker’s emotional connection with the audience, enhance the persuasive effect of discourse, and structure speech. The article demonstrates which facets of meaning are conveyed through each metaphorical model, what functions they perform, and what impact they have. This study contributes to the understanding of how language, culture, and cognition interact in the context of the cognitive-discursive approach and may be of interest to researchers in the fields of cognitive linguistics, rhetoric, intercultural communication, and discourse analysis.
Shcherbinina et al. (2025) studied this question.