Shortly, I have to explain the theoretical framework of my research. It is based on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), drawing on the insights from Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) combining it with a theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The basic claim of CMT interpretation (check Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) is that the mind is inherently embodied, though mostly unconscious, and abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. In this sense, metaphor is no longer so much a linguistic tissue as it is a tissue of thought. The metaphor is thus no longer in words, it is in the very concept of life. We no longer find it in language, it is a metaphor as a figure of thought, and therefore it is only partly a linguistic phenomenon that exists in language because it exists in the mind. CMA (introduced by Charteris-Black, 2004, associated with scholars such as George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Mark Turner, Eve Sweetser, Raymond Gibbs, Gerard Steen, Zoltan Kövecses, Gunther Radden, Antonio Barcelona) is an approach to the analysis of metaphors that aims to identify the intentions and ideologies underlying language use. In short, conceptual metaphor analysis proves to be a powerful tool for exploring topics outside of figurative language: pushing toward deeper metaphor analyzes, we ultimately discover an even deeper level of analysis at which the relationships between language, mind, experience, and ideology become defined.

CDA (comprises work by, among others, Roger Fowler, Tony Trew, Gunther Kress, Jay Lemke, Norman Fairclough, Ron Carter, Michael Toolan, Teun Van Dijk, Ruth Wodak, and Paul Chilton. For a summary of CDA traditions see Fairclough and Wodak (1997) and for exemplification Toolan ed. 2002) focuses on studying the linguistic manifestations of power relationships and social identity construction. The basic assumption is that apart from being a means of expression, language is also means of creating social inequality. Namely, in the discourse it often happens that the participants are not socially equal, which means that someone has power over others, whether it is direct or indirect - when from the position of "power" the certain person influences the opinion of others using language (persuasion, manipulation). These are numerous, usually subtle forms of abuse of social power, where the main means of domination over others is language. This is precisely the subject of a critical analysis of discourse.

For this research, CDA is not used in an inclusive sense, to denote a broad theoretical intervention of different orientations. Here we use van Dijk’s socio-cognitivist approach. As the main concepts in critical discourse analysis, van Dijk (2001) classifies ideology, power, domination, hegemony, persuasion, and manipulation.

More recently these two traditions (CMA and CDA) have begun to come together. Hiraga (1991), Chilton (1996), Lakoff (1996), Balkin (1998), Jones (2000), Stockwell (2000), Musolff (2004) and Charteris-Black (2005), Goatly (2007) among others, have begun to seriously explore the ideological effects of metaphors.

The research is further following hierarchical levels in which conceptual metaphors occupy different levels of schematicity. Namely, conceptual metaphors occur at four levels of schematicity in an interwoven vertical hierarchy of image schemas, domains, frames, and scenarios - where the lower levels (scenarios) are more specific versions of the higher, more schematic levels (for the explanation see Kovecses, 2020).

The research analyzes the collected data from interviews and speeches from two representatives of the political discourse of Montenegro (Milo Đukanović and Draginja Vuksanović) and of Japan (Shinzo Abe and Koike Yuriko), in a period of two years, 2018/2020 in Montenegro and 2016-2017/2020 in Japan, focusing on verbal unconscious instances and scenarios of unity image schema. The proposed politicians are taken for research as prominent representatives of the political discourse of Montenegro and of Japan, who were active during the elections in both countries, with the intention to equally involve male and female political actors in the research. The proposed years are taken as a valid corpus for the proposed research model for several reasons: Tokyo Gubernatorial elections in 2016, the General elections in Japan in 2017, the Presidential elections in Montenegro in 2018. The paper argues that elections and the rhetoric that accompanies the election period are important political discourses because they reveal policies and principles that seek support, persuade voters, and motivate trust. The year 2020 is taken because of the interesting political changes in both countries (parliamentary elections in Montenegro held in September, and the resignation of the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, also in September 2020), as well as the situation with the COVID-19 world pandemic - when unity inside and solidarity outside countries is expected. Data for analysis were taken from the official pages of politicians, from social network pages of politicians (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube), as well as from online editions of several daily newspapers.