This dictionary has been selected because it was

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: hypothesize ARGUMENT IS A COMPETITION or ARGUMENT IS A GAME metaphor. Charteris-Black (2004: 95-96) also notices a similar problem with the determining which words evoke which conceptual domain. He discusses this problem not with respect to the war domain, but BUILDING and JOURNEY. He points out that the words bridge and barrier can be interpreted either as indicative of BUILDING or JOURNEY metaphors. He rightly suggests that only reference to context can solve the problem. Unfortunately, not all potentially metaphorically used expressions appear in disambiguating contexts, as indicated by Charteris-Black’s (2004: 98) example 5.14: … that we had torn down the barriers that separated those of different race and region and religion. (Carter) Also, despite his identifying of the problem, Charteris-Black does not explicitly use his own solution. Also Koller (2004) noted that the WAR metaphor is quite specific, as its source domain is not uniform. It consists of both physical violence and military strategy elements. Further, Koller explains this lack of uniformity through the blending of the two domains in the course of the historical development of the concept and method of war from fistfights to Words from the lexical field of war and their metaphoric potential 197 modern technological warfare. As suggested in Chapter Three, though, based on the review of contemporary philosophical and sociological works devoted to war, the modern understanding of war is based on the 19th and in particular 20th century wars between nation-states, and performed by the national armies. Although war as such certainly involves physical violence and hand-to-hand combat, these are not the most salient features of war. In fact, if war between personified nation or states can be conceptualised as HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT (Lakoff 2001, see Chapter Three, Section 7), then WAR and HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT can be considered separate domains. This distinction is vital for the analysis presented in this chapter. In personal communication referred to in Chapter One, Section 2.3. Kövecses suggested that the only way to posit conceptual metaphors is informed introspection. To achieve this, in accord with his advice, this book includes a chapter (Chapter Three) on the conceptualisation of war emerging in the other social sciences, so that the analyses in Chapter Four could be “informed”. A revision of selected examples of the CMT literature on war also presented in Chapter Three showed what was the traditional wording of metaphors about war. In this chapter I intend to go a step further and suggest a possible use of corpora as a source of knowledge about the frequency of use of words, often regarded as indicative of WAR metaphors in various contexts. I believe that the knowledge of these frequencies can facilitate the process of categorizing, identification and labelling of metaphors. My assumption is that words whose frequency in war contexts is high are a good indicator of WAR metaphors when used figuratively, while words which have the highest frequency in another lit...
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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online