Second conceptual metaphors were used to increase 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: s of metaphorical or intertextually informed phrases seem to perform a solely ornamental function. Such expressions are presented in (125): (125) But however meticulously US and British special forces draw squares on Ordnance Survey maps and comb them mile by mile, his enemies within may in the end be his [bin Laden’s] nemesis… Apocalypse now?; Reportage; War on terror (headline) In either case, the possible analogy pointed at by the underlined words is not elaborated. It seems to work like a witty bon mot with no consequences for article structure or line of argumentation. 3. A summary of the qualitative analysis of war reports The analysis of the war reports from the 1980s and from 2001 published in Trybuna Ludu, Rzeczpospolita, and The Times show that the concepts of ‘politics’, ‘diplomacy’ and ‘war’ remain in an intricate relationship. 40 Robin Oakley: “Conflicts rage in covering the war 24 hours a day”, The Times Oct 19 2006. th A qualitative analysis of war news 189 Both in the Polish and British press articles, two perspectives on the meaning of ‘politics’ are most commonly adopted. First, politics is considered as a superordinate, general term covering both diplomacy and war. Second, it is used as a synonym of diplomacy and antonym of war. This dual nature of the concept contributes to its rhetorical exploitation. That is, in some texts, its reference is vague and wavers between politics=diplomacy at the subordinate (basic) level, and politics as an instantiation of the superordinate level. In such cases, when uttered by politicians, these words can be interpreted either as a warning of imminent military action or as sustaining the proposal for a diplomatic solution. Such indeterminacy does not contribute to efficient communication. In war reporting, or to be more exact in war propaganda, narrative construal of identity and massive analogising, metaphor and non-metaphor motivated, flourishes in a necessary step in persuading the public to war, that is in an enemy vilification routine. There is a common set of negatively evaluated labels that are used to refer to the enemy in order to disparage them. The reservoir of these abuse terms consists of a set of metaphors mapping the enemy onto discredited categories or categories considered inappropriate for the participants of the political process (THE ENEMY IS AN ANIMAL, THE ENEMY IS A PIRATE, THE ENEMY IS THE NAZI). Much of the vilification is achieved through the use of emotionally loaded attributive terms, such as emotional,41 deceitful, criminal, brutal. These attributes often form dichotomous42 series with the attributes predicated of the self, such as rational, honest, lawful etc. This repertoire is used by the British about the Argentines in the Falklands War; by the Poles about the Americans in the air raids on Libya and during the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan; by the British (and Americans, as reported in The Times) about the Libyans; by the British about the Soviets withdrawing from Afghanistan; and by the Polish and the British about the Taliban in 2001. This observation places Sandikcioglu’s (2000) article in a wider perspective. That is, the rhetorical strateg...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online