This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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