Ideological representation of Iran & England's newspapers: A Critical Metaphor Analysis

Authors
1 Professor of linguistics, university of Tehran
2 Phd candidate of linguistics, university of Tehran
Abstract
Critical metaphor analysis tries to be a multidisciplinary approach that studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk through metaphors in the social and political contexts.in the present research, through electing such approaches such as critical discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, pragmatics and corpus analysis, instances of discourse metaphors extracted from opposing wing’s newspapers such as Keyhan and Mardomsalari in Iran and Telegraph and Mirror in England analyzed based on Lakoff’s cognitive approach and Cameron’s discourse metaphor following Charteris-black’s integrative critical metaphor research. The aim was to investigate the similarities and differences between metaphors and conceptual metaphors in each discourse and subsequently in each language. To tackle this concern, considering each wing’s core principals, political parts of the intended newspapers were analyzed and to narrow down the research just five source domains including conflict, structure, journey, religion and plants were focalized. The results showed that the aforementioned languages and the political wings are different in terms of source domains and frequency due to multilingual factors including society, history and culture. The results also demonstrated the metaphorical features of the discourses in terms of source domains. In this study also each kinds of Lakoff’s structural, ontological, directional metaphors and Cameron’s systematic metaphors were identified. Furthermore, this study showed how identical facts are demonstrated differently by opposing ideologies. Finally this eclectic approach came to known as an effective approach in demonstrating hidden power relations.

Keywords


  • آقاگل زاده، فردوس (1386). تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی و ادبیات. تهران: علمی فرهنگی.

  • آقاگل زاده، فردوس و مریم غیاثیان (1386). «رویکردهای غالب در تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی». زبان و زبان­شناسی، د 3. ش 1.

  • آقاگل زاده، فردوس و طاهره طارمی (1394). «تحلیل زبان‌شناختی گفتمان‌های رقیب در پروندۀ بورسیه‌های تحصیلی: رویکرد تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی فرکلاف». جستارهای زبانی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس. ش 34. صص 391 -414.

  • رضاپور، ابراهیم (1390). «تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی: نقش استعاره در بازنمایی و بازتولید ایدئولوژی در رسانه‌ها». رسالۀ دکتری زبان­شناسی همگانی. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

  • سلطانی، علی­اصغر (1384). قدرت، گفتمان و زبان: سازوکارهای جریان قدرت در جمهوری اسلامی ایران . تهران: نشر نی.


 



  • Aghagolzadeh, F. & M. Ghiasian (2007). “Prevailing approaches in critical discourse analysis”. Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 3 Ed. No. 1. [In Persian].

  • Aghagolzadeh, F. & T. Taromi, (2015). “Linguistic analysis of competing discourses in educational scholarship case: Fairclough's approach to CDA”. Language Related Research. No. 3. Pp. 391-414. [In Persian].

  • Aghagolzadeh, F. (2007). Critical discourse analysis & literature .SID .Tehran. Scientific and Cultural Publications. [In Persian].

  • Bale, T. (2011). The Conservative Party: From Thatcher toCameron. London: Polity Press.

  • Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cameron, L. & G. Low (1999). Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.

  • Cameron, L. (2007) .“Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk”. Discourse & Society. 18. Pp 197-222.

  • Cameron, L. (2008). “A discourse approach to metaphor: Explaning systematicmetaphors for literacy processes in a school discourse community”. In Language in the Context of Use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language. edited by Andrea Tyler, Yiyoung Kim, Mari Takada. Pp. 321-328.

  • Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. Ed Milband. Editorials. Mirror Newspaper. 5. 2015

  • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

  • Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study ofLanguage. London: Routledge.

  • Gee, J. (2004). Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.

  • Howe, N. (1988). Metaphor in Contemporary American Political Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol. 3(2). Pp. 87-104

  • Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980), Metaphors we Live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mindand its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

  • Phillips & Jørgensen. )2002) , Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Sage publications. London. Roberts (Eds). pp. 156-164.

  • Rezapour, E. (2011).  Critical discourse analysis: Metaphor Role in Reproduction and Representation of Ideologies in Media. Ph.D. Dissertation in General Linguistics. Tehran. Allame tabatabai University. [In Persian].

  • Soltani, A. (2005). Power, Discourse and Language: Power Relation Mechanisms in Islamic republic of Iran. Tehran. Ney. [In Persian].    

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society.

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. The handbook ofdiscourse analysis. Pp 352-371.

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). “The discourse-knowledge interface In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds), Critical DiscourseAnalysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary . Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 85- 109.

  • Wei, L. (2016). “Rethinking critical discourse analysis”. International Journal of English Linguistics. Vol. 6, No. 2. [In Persian].