The study of the formation and interaction of the metaphors in power and counter- power discourses in Iran’s press according to Hart and lukes (2007) and Charteris-Black (2004)

Authors
T. Khadem 1
F. Sojoodi 2
F. Agha golzadeh 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran. Iran.
2 Associate Professor of linguistics and semiotics, University of Art, Tehran
3 Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Nowadays different discourses compete to have the most influence on the people’s minds to change into the power discourse. The present article shows how power and counter- power metaphors are made and used. To this end, in a corpus type of study, 600 articles of two parties - conservatives (Osool- garayan) and reformists ( Eslah –talaban) - during their counter- power and power period were chosen. The metaphors were extracted and analyzed using a critical- cognitive approach in a descriptive – analytic method, according to Chartris – Black 2004 and Hart and Lukes (2007). The results show that the hegemonic discourse uses media to manipulate the personal and social sources of knowledge as well as choosing metaphors and forming the mental concepts and giving the related information. In this way they reform the cognition and experiential latitudes. They reconstruct new metaphors using ideology, culture and history to legitimate the counter- power discourse and delegitimize the power discourse in order to convince. Media repeat the desired metaphors and construct people’s concepts and finally beliefs. If a discourse has legitimacy, the counter- power discourse uses its words and metaphors. According to the findings of the research the metaphorical schemas of some concepts such as government, election, power etc. are used completely different in these two discourses and delegitimize each other.

Keywords

Subjects

• Aghazadeh, F. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis. Tehran: Elmi- Farhangi. [In Persian].
• Aghazadeh, F. (2012). “Discription and explanation of ideological linguistic structure in discourse analysis”. Language Related Research. 2(10). Pp 1-19.[In Persian].
• Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Chilton, P. (2005). “Manipulation, memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf”. In L.D. Saussure and Schulz, P. (Eds.). Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 15-44.
• Dadbeh, A. & B. Farzaneh (1988). the Great Islamic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13. Pp 245-247, Entry: Rhetoric. [In Persian].
• Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
• Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner (1996). “Blending as a central process of grammar”. In E. Goldberg Adele (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Pp. 113-130.
• Golfam, A. & F. Yousefi rad (2002). “Cognitive linguistics and metaphor”. Advances in Cognitive Science. Vol. 4, No. 3. Pp. 59-64.[In Persian].
• Golshaiei, R. et. al. (2014). “The corpus- based assessment of the General metaphor theory Premises: The case study of argumentation as a war in Persian”. Language Related Research. No. 17.Pp. 223-244.[In Persian].
• Hamrita, M. (2016). “The Metaphorical and Ideological Representation of the Political Opponent in the Hardline Islamist Discourse in Tunisia". Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, Volume 4 ~ Issue 6 (2016). Pp: 95-102.
• Hart, C. & D. LukeŠ (2007). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Johnson, M. (1981) Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Lakoff, G. (1971). The role of deduction in grammar. In C. J. Filmore and D. T. (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Landau, M. J.; M. D. Robinson & B. P. Meier (2013). The Power of Metaphor: Examining its Influence on Social Life. Washington, D. C.: APA Press.
• Moshirzade, H. & F. Homaiei (2012). “The Discourse of the Britain European politics: Critical – Metaphorical”. The International Political Research. Vol. 4, No. 12. Pp 1-39. [In Persian].
• Musolff, A. (2007). “Which role do metaphors play in racial prejudice? The function of anti-Semitic imagery in Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’”. Patterns of Prejudice 41 (1). Pp. 21-44.
• Rash, F. (2006). The Language of Violence. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. New York: Peter Lang.
• Rezapour, E. & F. Aghagolzadeh (2012). “The role of metaphor in foregrounding and marginalization of Idealogy in domestic newspapers”. Journal of Language & Research (Zabanpazhoohi). Vol 3, No. 7. Pp. 69-94.[In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (1998). Linguistics and Literature: The History of Some Idioms. Tehran: Nashr- e – Markaz. [In Persian].
• Said, E. (1994). “Michel Foucault’, Barry Smart” (ed.), in: Michel Foucault, Vol. 2, and London: Routledge.
• Shiri, B. (2012). “The links between metaphor and ideology”. Literary Criticism. No. 19. Pp. 121-150. [In Persian].
• Thibodeau, P. H. & L. Boroditsky (2011). “Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning”. Plos ONE, 6(2): e16782.
• Trčková, D. (2011). “Multi-functionality of metaphor in newspaper discourse”. Brno Studies in English. Vol. 37, No. 1.
• Validi, Sh. & S. Kian (2010). “The interdependence of power and metaphor: A Foucauldian-Drridian Approach”. Critical Language and Literary Studies. Vol.3, No.5. Pp. 109-127 [In Persian].
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). “Principles of critical discourse analysis”. In: Discourse & Society. 4(2). Pp. 249-283.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). “Discourse, power and access. In Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, (Eds.), ” Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. Pp. 84-104.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Study. London: Sage.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). “Critical Discourse Analysis”,In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. (Pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wodak, R. (2006). “Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA”. Discourse and Society. 8(1). Pp. 179-190.
• Zargar, E. (2014). “The Government and the metaphor of honesty in religious democracy”. Strategic Studies. No. 64. Pp 7-34 [In Persian].
• Zenken, J. (2003). “Ideological imagination: international and Co relational metaphors in political discourse". Discourse Society. Vol. 14, No. 4. Pp.507-523.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Serial Number 44
May and June 2018
Pages 327-350