The analogy to nelson even if negated can arouse

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: ent. It is thus a stylistic trope with a rhetorical effect opposite to that in (35) and (36). This linguistic expression can be motivated by the conceptual metaphor WAR IS A DISPUTE. The next most prominent discourse motif was that connected with face saving and face threatening. The central underlying metaphor here is 11 As shown in Chapter Two, Section 4, Hughes (1988) considers the use of war-like vocabulary in non-military contexts as resulting from a desire to increase the expressive force of the text. 12 Underhill (2003) calls such a linguistic phenomenon a switch, where a word seems to take up a new meaning, antithetic to its original meaning. A qualitative analysis of war news 125 that of NATION/STATE IS A PERSON, and the cultural tradition referred to by Janion and Wiśniewski (see Chapter Three, Section 5) and labelled as the Glory of War Myth. The metaphor is clearly expressed in the following quotations: (39) The fact that Britain was forced to veto was seen as a victory of sorts for Argentina which had been seeking to tarnish Britain’s image within the international community. Members of the council had earlier been amending and refining the draft resolution with the aim of finding a formula that would save face for both sides and avert the battle over Port Stanley. Argentina will maintain its freedom to protect the nation’s interest and honour, it will not be negotiated. Lord Shackleton, for the Opposition, said it was the first time Britain had suffered the humiliation of the loss of a colony since the fall of Singapore. Mrs Thatcher: The future of freedom and reputation of Britain are at stake… These excerpts amply demonstrate how nations and states are conceived of as people, and interaction between them within the framework of international politics, be it diplomacy or war, can be construed analogically to speech acts or physical interaction between people.13 This conceptualisation has a long tradition in European thinking on state and war, so that the conceptual metaphor NATION/STATE IS A PERSON goes back to the Renaissance idea of body politic described in detail in Musolff (2004). As a result of this metaphor countries can threaten each other’s face or attempt to save it. In this way such human qualities as emotionality are ascribed to states. This emotional tone is further strengthened by references to the Glory of War Myth, represented by such phrases as our ships and gallant men, bravery, dignity, injured pride, the supreme valour of our forces, to lower our colours, to kill for flags, revenge, pride and arrogance. This Myth is also fostered by certain historical references, such as the one in the first sentence of (40): 13 See Chilton – Lakoff (1995) on the metaphorical construction of international relations. Also Musolff (2004) on the conceptualisation of the European Community. 126 Chapter IV (40) however great the nation’s appetite for heroes, there is no conviction here that a new Nelson has been born Mr Victor Coodhew (St Albans, C): Will she confirm that 30 million lives were lost in the last world war in Europe because democracy refused to accept and resist the aggressive intentions of a dictatorship? Will she ensure such a thing does not happen again? In scene...
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