152 chapter iv to a fist fight this interpretation

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rom the deceit group. In none of these commentaries, though, could any evidence of discourse structuring-metaphors be detected. 2.4.1. Isolated metaphors Like in the previous group of texts, also here the concepts of politics, diplomacy and war interact closely with one another. (70) Stany Zjednoczone, które wypowiadają się werbalnie przeciwko terroryzmowi, faktycznie prowadzą politykę terroryzmu międzynarodowego i agresji, ingerencji w sprawy wewnętrzne innych państw. The United States, who speaks verbally (sic!) against terrorism, actually conducts a policy of international terrorism and aggression, of intervention into the internal affairs of other countries.’ Brutalne lekceważenie zasad międzynarodowego współżycia, podeptanie Karty Narodów Zjednoczonych stanowi swoistą amerykań- 150 Chapter IV ską odpowiedź – po ostatnich próbach jądrowych – na różnorodne pokojowe propozycje Związku Radzieckiego… ‘A brutal contempt for the rules of international co-existence, and the trampling over the United Nations Charter constitute the American answer – following the latest nuclear tests – to various peace proposals of the Soviet Union.’ In the first sentence of (70) the diplomatic acts are contrasted with military acts, so that ‘speaking against terrorism’ is opposed to ‘the policy of state terrorism, aggression and intervention’. Interestingly enough, policy here is synonymous to a militant action, and remains in contrast to political dispute, tantamount to diplomacy. Diplomacy is phrased by means of what seems to be a pleonasm: ‘speaking verbally’, but may as well be a necessary distinction between ‘speaking verbally’ – diplomacy and ‘speaking militarily’ – war.22 This last phrase may be a result of the activation of WAR IS A DISPUTE metaphor. The interaction obtaining between two superpowers is framed in terms of a dialogue, where the USA gives an answer to the Soviet Union, the answer consisting in a military act. This sentence also represents the hubris set of labels with such words as ‘contempt’ and ‘trampling over’. This ties in nicely with the legal terminology, also often intertwined with the arrogance attributed to the enemy: (71) Zakłada ona także „prawo” do bezprawia ze strony USA, tzn. do jednostronnej interwencji zbrojnej, jeżeli taką decyzję podejmie prezydent. [doktryna Reagana] ‘[Reagan’s doctrine assumes the right to a breach of justice (in Polish expressed by a pun lit. the law to anti-law) on the part of the USA, i.e. to unilateral military intervention if the President so decides.’ USA uzurpują sobie prawo „karania” siłą każdego, kto myśli inaczej niż przedstawiciele amerykańskiej administracji ‘The USA claim the right to “punish” by force everyone who thinks differently than the representatives of the American Administration’. Here the legal motif intertwines with the hubris motif, so that the USA is presented as an arrogant state, which places its actions above the law, and is ready to inflict punishment on others. The second sente...
View Full Document

This essay was uploaded on 02/24/2014 for the course LING 1100 taught by Professor Friedman during the Fall '09 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Ask a homework question - tutors are online