This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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:
emotionality, unpredictability, deception, xenophobia
dichotomy: neocolonial regime
vs. right to self
GENERAL GALTIERI IS A FASCIST about the British:
hegemony, deception, irrationality, brutality DICTATOR
ACTIONS ARE PIRATE ACTIONS The Times
1982 Trybuna Ludu
1982 BARIC ACTIONS rabid dog,
View Full Document