MILITARY METAPHOR IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: TACTICS AND STRATEGY
One of the main tasks of political communication is to create and promote the image of a politician. The process is aimed at creating both a positive image that is attractive to society, which is a key factor of influencing mass consciousness and pursuing their goals, as well as the negative one used by a politician to discredit their opponents in a tough competition of modern policies. In the modern information society, the main function of the mass media – Informative – changes its nature and is transformed into a manipulative function. One of the tools of manipulating the audience is a metaphor. The active use of metaphors in political discourse is due to its ability to influence each of the stages of solving problems in the political sphere: understanding the problem situation, finding options for solving it, evaluating alternatives, and choosing options. The theoretical study and consistent description of political metaphors seem to be one of the most promising and dynamically developing trends in modern linguistics, particularly in the field of discourse analysis. The metaphorical picture of the world reflects the specifics of the national consciousness and ways of thinking that are characteristic of this or that period of political life of the state. One of the types of political metaphor that occupies a central place in the political discourse of any state is a military metaphor. The paper deals with military metaphors functioning in political discourse. Their role in the global communicative strategy, “Them and Us” is revealed, along with the ensuing tactics.
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
1. Baranov, A. N. (2004), “Cognitive theory of metaphor almost 20 years later”, editorial preface in G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by, Russian edition, Editorial, Moscow, Russia, P. 7-21. [in Russian].
2. Demiankov, V. Z. (2002), “Political discourse as a subject of political philology”, Political science. Political discourse: History and modern research, INION RAS, Moscow, Russia, P. 32-43. [in Russian].
3. Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G. (1995), “Foreign policy by metaphor”, in Ch. Schäffner and A. Wenden (ed.) Language and Peace, Aldershot, Dartmouth, P. 37–59.
4. Dijk, T. A., van (1993), “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis”, Discourse and Society, vol. 4, #2, P. 249–283.
5. Fairclough, N. L. (1985), “Critical and Descriptive Goals in Discourse Analysis”, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 9, P. 739-763.
6. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live by, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
7. Musolff, A. (2004), “Metaphor and conceptual evolution”, Metaphorik.de, #7, 55-75.
8. Musolff, A. (2000), Mirror Images of Europe. Metaphors in the public debate about Europe in Britain and Germany, Iudicium, Munich, Germany.
9. Osborn, M. (1967), “Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 53, P. 115-126.
10. Ritchie. D. (2003), “ARGUMENT IS WAR” – Or is it a Game of Chess? Multiple Meanings in the Analysis of Implicit Metaphors”, Metaphor and Symbol, vol. 18, #2, 125-146.
11. Ritchie, D. (2004), “Common Ground in Metaphor Theory: Continuing the Conversation”, Metaphor and Symbol, vol. 19, #3, 233-244.