This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: sewitzian theory of war and is
discussed in detail by Lakoff (1992). A qualitative analysis of war news 117 ‘the majority of Labour MPs stated that they cannot make out a blank
cheque to [the Government]’
Possible underlying conceptual metaphor: QUALITY IS QUANTITY licences
the degradation of human life to a quantifiable object. It is possible
through the operation of the metaphorical mapping: Human Life is an Object of Trade, which entails that human life may have a price and may be
exchanged for political gains. Some of the examples above may be considered an elaboration of the Vehicle rather than a linguistic realisation of
conceptual metaphor. This elaboration consists in supported by the enumeration of equipment involved or lost by either side of the conflict.
The list presented in (21) signals a certain methodological problem
with categorisation. That is if ‘politics’ is a concept superordinate to ‘diplomacy’ and ‘war’, and if in a coherent text anaphoric relations can hold
between the superordinate and the subordinate noun, then it is difficult to
say whether for example ‘economic undertones’, or ‘to achieve political
aims at minimal price’ refer to ‘politics’ or to ‘war’. In fact, in such a context, conducting war and conducting politics seem largely synonymous.
This synonymy is not only a matter of conceptualisation or wording, but
also of social structure, as the heads of states, regardless of their education,
are often also the commanders-in-chief of their country’s armed forces.
The next most popular sources represented in the war reports analysed here were FORCE and JOURNEY with 12 and 11 types of linguistic
expressions respectively. The concept of ‘force’, as a basic system underlying a number of various conceptualisations, from causation, through
psycho- and sociodynamic patterns to discourse structuring in argumentation, has been discussed by Talmy (2000, see Chapter One, Section 5). It
seems that the concept of ‘force’ may be one of the systems underlying
such concepts as ‘politics’, ‘war’ and ‘argument’, thus constituting a similarity allowing for cross-domain mappings. In the analysed articles the
linguistic manifestations of the concept were the following:
(22) odbić Falklandy ‘to recapture the Falklands’, umocnienie suwerenności ‘the strengthening of sovereignty’, rzucenie na kolana ‘lit., idiom the act of throwing sb. to the knees = humiliating sb., English
equivalent: bring sb. to their knees’, dotkliwy cios ‘a painful blow’,
siły ‘forces’, przerzucać żołnierzy ‘lit. to throw soldiers = to transfer
soldiers’, odpierać ‘to throw back’, napięcie ‘tension’, usunąć ‘to 118 Chapter IV remove’, starcie/starcia ‘lit. frictions =clashes’, poprzeć stronę
brytyjską z całą swoja mocą ‘to support the British side with all
their might’, opór ‘resistance’
‘Force’ as a concept structuring the domain of war results in the representation of military conflict in terms of hand-to-hand combat (odbić ‘recapture’, rzucać na kolana ‘to throw sb. to their knees’, dotkliwy cios ‘painful
blow’, odpierać ‘to throw back’, usunąć ‘remove’, napięcie ‘tension’,
opór ‘resistance’). It may...
View Full Document