Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 15:1 (2016) ► pp.63–93

Making intelligence more transparent

A critical cognitive analysis of US strategic intelligence reports on Sino-US relation

| Nanjing Normal University
This paper attempts to make a critical cognitive analysis of US strategic intelligence reports and aims at investigating language strategies and cognitive biases that occur in the reports and how the reports create the “realities” that may influence policymakers’ decisions. The data for analysis include seven reports released by US Intelligence Community which analyze, more or less, the Sino-US relations currently and in the foreseeable future as well as the implications of a rising China on US policies. The analytic framework is built up by integrating Critical Metaphor Analysis, Conceptual Blending Theory and Discourse Space Theory, each of which deal with different aspects of the discourse and on the whole provide a comprehensive analysis of it. The critical cognitive analysis of intelligence reports could disclose the views that analysts hold on particular issues, providing valuable reference for understanding or evaluating their reports’ contents, and reveal the ideology inherent in US strategic thinking, helping to estimate US strategic policies in the long term.
Keywords: conceptual blending, metaphor, discourse space theory, Cognitive Linguistics, intelligence analysis, CDA, Sino-US relation
Published online: 12 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15.1.04zha
References (35)
Beer, A. Frabcis and Christ’l De Landtsheer. 2004. Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Bruce D., and Alan E. Goodman. 1989. Strategic Intelligence for American National Security. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, James B. 2008. “Making analysis more reliable: Why epistemology matters to intelligence.” In Analyzing Intelligence: Origins, Obstacles, and Innovations, ed. by George, Roger Z., and James B. Bruce, 171–190. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cap. Piotr. 2013. Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift: Toward a Discourse Space Theory.” In Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Francisco Jose Ruiz de Mendoza, 78–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
, 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York/Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and The Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Filardo Llamas, Laura. 2010. “Discourse worlds in Northern Ireland: The legitimization of the 1998 Agreement.” In Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution: Debating Peace in Northern Ireland, ed. by Hayward, Katy and Catherine O’Donnell, 210–229. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2012. “To live in the heart (and mind) of others: The construction of memory in Northern Irish Commemorative Plaques.” CADAAD 5(2): 152–170.Google Scholar
Filardo, Laura. 2008. “A comparative study of the discursive legitimation of the agreement by the four main Northern Irish Political parties throughout time.” Ethnopolitics, 71: 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphor. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2007. “Critical discourse analysis and conceptualization: Mental spaces, blended spaces and discourse spaces in the British National Party.” In Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory, ed. by Christopher Hart & Dominik Lukes, 106–130. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: toward a theoretical framework.” Critical Discourse Studies 5(2): 91–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Moving beyond metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by Christopher Hart, 171–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Discourse.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Eva Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 331–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heuer, Richards. 1999. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.Google Scholar
Johnson, Lock. K. (ed.). 2007. Strategic Intelligence, Volumes 1-5. Westport: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
Kent, Sherman. 1949. Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kovecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeed, John. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Christina and Anita L. Wenden. 1995. Language and Peace. Aldersot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Aletta, G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna, A. Kaal, Tina Krennmyr and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Cheng, Le & Cheng Chen
2019. The construction of relational frame model in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s foreign visit speeches . Text & Talk 39:2 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.