A similar effect has also been noted by barnden 2007

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: enses of the word are most frequent and that this knowledge may influence the indicator status of these words. That is, if one of the basic senses of a word is far more frequent than the other, it is more likely to be activated in every use and in metaphor formation and interpretation. Conclusion This book is a study in cognitive discourse analysis. The ConceptualMetaphor-Theory-informed examination of Polish and British war reports has shown that despite the fact that a number of different conflicts were investigated, in all of them similar discourse patterns could be identified. The most significant one, around which much of the propagandist construal of a particular war was built, was the vilification of the enemy. No matter whether Poland and Britain were conflict participants, allies of the parties in conflict or more distant observers, one party of the conflict was identified as ‘the enemy’ and was consequently denigrated. The sheer juxtaposition with ‘us’ was often enough to ameliorate the picture of the self and to strengthen the national unity in times of crisis. The summary results of the enemy vilification analyses are repeated in the Table 9. on the next page, which shows that the most popular rhetorical strategy used about the enemies was the attribution of the negatively emotionally loaded values (e.g. colonialism, imperialism, deception, arrogance, irrationality, insanity, barbarism, emotonality, criminality). Another strategy was to employ conceptual metaphors linking the enemy with the negatively construed categories, as in THE ENEMY IS THE NAZI, THE ENEMY IS A (HUNTED) ANIMAL, THE ENEMY IS A (SPURNED) ANIMAL, THE ENEMY IS A PIRATE. It seems that the ritual verbal abuse of the enemy is a part of the cultural construal of war. And it is this element of the concept of ‘war’ which is the most frequent target of conceptual metaphors. These results place Sandikcioglu’s (2000, see Chapter Three, Section 7) identification of the Orientalist framework used to denigrate the Iraquis in the American media in 1991-1992 in a broader perspective. That is, the enemy vilification strategies identified in the present work are similar to those posited by Sandikcioglu. This similarity thus seems to suggest that these verbal vilification rituals are a regular pattern in any war propaganda and are not specific to any particular war or any particular enemy. There are, of course, some minor differences. For example, it would be hard to attribute colonialism to the Afghans in the 1988-1989 reports. However, the majority of the rhetorical patterns, especially their conceptual metaphorical motivation, remain the same. about the Argentineans: negative values: emotionality, unpredictability, deception, xenophobia dichotomy: neocolonial regime vs. right to self determination GENERAL GALTIERI IS A FASCIST about the British: negative values: colonialism, imperialism, hegemony, deception, irrationality, brutality DICTATOR ARGENTINEAN ACTIONS ARE PIRATE ACTIONS The Times 1982 Trybuna Ludu 1982 BARIC ACTIONS rabid dog, AMERICANS A...
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