الفهرس 
الغلافOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 296 |  |  |
| | | from | 296 | | |
Abstract
Metaphors have generally been viewed as a mere matter of stylistic decoration. Taking this as a presupposition is perilous, since metaphors are cognitive tools: “they actually play a primary role in shaping our understanding of the world around us”. (Meadows, 2007, p.2). Highlightening this role of metaphor in shaping thoughts and raising awareness against its manipulative potentials are primary motives to some recent research including the current work.
Therefore, studying the manipulative potentials of metaphors may be an opportunity to study the relationship between power, ideology and discourse, especially in political discourse in its broadest sense, as defined by van Dijk (2001,b) “*t+his social domain that comprises the set of activities among others establishing, reinforcing and / or modifying power or collective decision making” (p.4). Similarly, Lakoff, R. (1990) asserts that “*l+anguage is politics, politics assigns power, power governs how people talk and how they are understood. The analysis of language, from this point of view, is more than an academic exercise: today, more than ever, it is a survival skill” (p.7). According to Thomas et al.(1999), “*p+olitics is concerned with power: the power to make decisions, to control resources, to control other people’s behavior and often to control their values” (p.32). Chapter seven: Conclusions Page 225
Indeed, as Orwell (1946) asserts, ”in our age there is no keeping out of politics” (p.154). In writing a work of art, his first impulse, as he states in his article “Why I Write”(1947):
What I have most wanted to do throughout the past ten years is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art’. I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing.
Similarly, Bradbury (2000) describes his writing motive as “*t+rying to prevent futures” (cited in La Brie, 2010, p. 443). This aim of raising awareness of linguistic manipulation is a mutual motive in the two literary works under investigation and the current research. So, the current study aims at highlighting the manipulative potentials of a pervasive conceptual metaphor put forward in the two novels and some of the Egyptian presidential speeches: STATE AS A FAMILY. This is to provide a comprehensive view of the manipulative potentials of this metaphor across genres and across cultures, especially in establishing, gaining and maintaining power image (i.e. in political discourse as defined by van Dijk).
This study is an attempt to explore the relationship between language, power and ideology through tracing power in language, especially in George Orwell’s 1984 and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, and Egyptian presidential speeches of ex-president Al Sadat and ousted president Mubarak. This is discussed within the frame of the conceptual metaphor “STATE AS A FAMILY”.
The study is thus an inquiry into the manipulative potentials of imposing the conceptual metaphor “STATE AS A FAMILY” as a linguistic strategy that enforces moral or ethical value on people over their social perception of manipulation and power domination, and how that varies between cultures. Chapter seven: Conclusions Page 226
Hence, the current study adopts an eclectic approach to metaphor analysis that adopts Lakoff and Johnson’s Cognitive Metaphor Theory (1999) (CMT), charteris-Black (2004) CMA integrated with Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory , Musloff’s (2006) Metaphoric Scenarios, and van Dijk’s (2006) Manipulation Triangulate.
The current study introduces and empirically examines a five-phase-analytical procedure that is built on charteris-Black’s Cognitive Metaphor Analysis three- step- analysis aiming at widening its analytical scope. This is realized by considering the listener’s role , the speaker’s role and intention through integrating Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory , Musloff’s (2006) Metaphoric Scenarios, and van Dijk’s (2006) Manipulation Triangulate. It also adds a pre-analysis phase. This is a phase in which a conceptual map is drawn of all possible metaphoric scenarios to elucidate potential metaphoric expressions related to each scenario. This is considered in identifying metaphors phase, not to neglect loosely related metaphoric scenarios, if lexical tension is used as the only criterion for metaphor identification. It adds a fifth phase, as well, for the purpose of tracking the synthesis of narrative frame contributing to the political myth creation in each text. The metaphoric frames and political myth creation procedures of all texts are outlined and compared in order to draw conclusions.
The study results: (1) provide a procedural definition of linguistic manipulation, (2) point out elements of a comprehensive framework for metaphor analysis based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory, (3) highlight manipulative potentials of STATE AS A FAMILY metaphor in factual and fictional political discourse, (4) emphasize STATE AS A FAMILY scenarios variation between cultures, (5) put forward two cases of backfiring metaphor elaborating historical and socio-cultural entailments.