Enemy vilification framework the depiction of the

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: invaders (N), and surrender (V, N). Group two is constituted by the words in which the ‘physical violence’ and the military sense compete with each other and it is difficult to claim with any degree of certainty whether they are an indication of the X IS WAR or the X IS A HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT metaphors. They are attack (N) and fight (V). The third and fourth group should not be taken as an indication of the X IS WAR metaphor. The third group includes attack (V), conflict (N) and fight (N). Attack (V) and fight (N), on the basis of the frequency of their ‘physical violence’ sense can be considered as expressions of the X IS A HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT. Conflict (N), from the fourth, one-element group, is so general that when it is used about ARGUMENT, SPORT, WAR etc it can be considered as a statement of inclusion; a generalisation, often perhaps euphemistic, rather than a metaphorization. These results are summarised in Table 8 below. Table 8. Summary of the results Group I: good indicators of WAR as source of conceptual metaphor Group II: ambiguous between WAR and HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT as source Group III: good indicators of HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT as source Group IV: general hyponym for the interaction of competing forces bombard (V) fighting (N) invade (V) invasion (N) invaders (N) surrender (V, N) attack (N) fight (V) attack (V) fight (N) conflict (N) Concluding, the high frequency of senses other than military, in the case of the investigated words – the ‘physical violence’ sense – should be Words from the lexical field of war and their metaphoric potential 229 taken as an indication that these words may not be a lexical realization of the underlying conceptual metaphor X IS WAR. Instead, they may be a manifestation of the X IS HAND-TO HAND COMBAT conceptual metaphor. This does not necessarily mean that if the military sense predominates, then its metaphoric extension will be evidence of the X IS WAR metaphor. For example, in sentence (11) below, the word bomb does not seem to evoke the X IS WAR conceptual metaphor: (11) So has a summer of bombing round country lanes and setting psychics loose in the circles helped him figure out whether whirlwinds, UFOs or tabloid journalists are responsible? [ACP 2088] In this example the verb bomb clearly has little to do with seeing a trip in the country as war. The effect of the metaphor seems to be limited to highlighting the fast, frantic movement. As has been indicated in the introduction to the present chapter, many scholars working in the cognitive discourse analysis noted the problem of identification of source domains for metaphors. Investigation of naturally occurring discourse is not as clear as introspection, as there is only as much context as the text producer gave and it cannot always fulfil the requirements of linguistic analysis and interpretation. In this chapter an attempt has been made to show that a corpus-based analysis of the words considered the indicators of a specific domain may show which non-metaphoric s...
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