This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: le could be attributed to states. For example, the metaphorical mapping: State Has a Face framed military defeat in terms of a humiliating
loss of face. This observation has certain theoretical implications. That is,
we cannot claim that the Target Domain of STATE has a structural element
onto which the ‘face’ from the Source Domain of PERSON could be projected. A similar effect has also been noted by Barnden (2007, see footnote 60). Thus, we could claim that the element of ‘face’ is attributed of,
not mapped onto the domain of STATE. This finding can lend further support to Szwedek’s (2005) claim, resulting from his Objectification Theory
(see Chapter One, Section 2.2.) – that in ontological metaphor it is not
shared entailments but the inheritance of properties which is responsible
for the Target Domain structure.
The identification of the enemy vilification pattern and framing of
the Glory of War Myth have shown that Conceptual Metaphor Analysis
can contribute to the ongoing comparative discourse analysis of the lan- 234 Conclusion guage of the media and politics. These two strategies of war representation also indicate which elements of the domain of WAR are most often
construed metaphorically. Also, they show how media discourse yields
legitimization to social and political interaction, how linguistic representation of self and the other construes reference for political and military
action in which the lives of the enemies as well as of ‘our’ society members are sacrificed.
Interaction between a number of conceptual metaphors has also
been noted in the present study. One of the most pervasive combinations
was that between the generic metaphor QUALITY IS QUANTITY, the image
schema BALANCE and a specific structural metaphor WAR IS BUSINESS.
The dominant mapping resulting from this interaction was Human Life is
an Object of Trade. As a result, human life can be exchanged for political
gains hidden under the labels of freedom or the right for self-determintion
used in the lofty style of political propaganda. The BALANCE schema also
underlies non-metaphorial parts of the model of WAR, as war requires
funds for military equipment, training, soldiers pay, etc.
The ontological metaphor NATION/STATE IS A PERSON often interacted with the structural metaphor WAR IS A HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT.
Consequently, the opponents in the combat were mapped onto nation/states. For example in America struck against Libya both countries
are personified and framed as opponents in a combat. Such effects are
predicted by Chilton – Lakoff (1995) in their discussion of the concepualisation of politics as an interaction between personified nation/states.
The conceptual metaphor WAR IS A CRUSADE, which played a minor function in the present data is conversant with Charteris-Black’s
(2004, see Chapter One, Section 2.7.) findings concerning the POLITICS IS
RELIGION conceptual metaphor dominating American political discourse.
In the British reporting of the Falklands Wa...
View Full Document