Cover not available
Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 6:1 (2016) ► pp.103–133

“Pour water where it burns”

Dysphemistic conceptualizations of the enemy in Persian political discourse

| Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary.
While dysphemism has been extensively studied as a general phenomenon, there are not too many studies on how it is used in political discourse by top officials. This paper aims to examine the ways in which a sample of two high-level Iranian politicians offensively conceptualize their alleged enemies, namely the U.S., Israel, and the West, through conceptual metaphors and metonymies. A cognitive linguistic analysis of the speeches of Iran’s supreme leader and ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicate that the selection of the metaphorical dysphemistic source domain is primarily determined by religion, previous discourse (pre-existing conventional dysphemistic metaphors), aspects of the target domain, and anger or hatred toward the enemies. The analysis indicates that most of the pejorative connotations are attributed to Israel as the alleged number one enemy of Iran via Israel is an animal, Israel is a tumor, and Israel is a bastard. The other presumed enemies, that is, the U.S. and the West are characterized via the u.s. is a devil, and the u.s. and the west are criminals. Moreover, the two politicians, while resorting to taboo concepts, remain loyal to the established discursive norms of delegitimizing the actions and thoughts of the enemies of the Islamic Republic.
Keywords: dysphemism, context, Iranian politicians, metonymy, metaphor, enemy
Published online: 12 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.6.1.05bak
References (34)
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism. Language used as shield and weapon. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L., & Trudgill, P.J. (1990). Bad language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bostrom, R.N., Baseheart, J.R., & Rossiter, C.M. (1973). The effect of three types of profane language in persuasive messages. Journal of Communication, 231, 461–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English: Observations on the roots, cultivation and hybrids of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalizing ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G.D. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavazza, N., & Guidetti, M. (2014). Swearing in political discourse why vulgarity works. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(5), 537–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamizo Dominguez, P.J., & Zawislawska, M. (2006). Animal names used as insults and derogation in Polish and Spanish. Philologia Hispalensis, 201, 137–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric. The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). The communication of leadership. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, E. (2008). Sex-related euphemism and dysphemism: An analysis in terms of conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 30(2), 95–110.Google Scholar
. (2013). Words as weapons for mass persuasion: Dysphemism in Churchill’s wartime speeches. Text & Talk, 33(3), 311–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. (1989). What makes bad language bad. Language & Communication, 9(1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gradecak-Erdeljic, T., & Milic, G. (2011). Metonymy at the crossroads: A case of euphemisms and dysphemisms. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 147–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M.A. (1989). Reactions to obscene language. Communication Research Reports, 61, 67–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 41, 153–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research, 41, 267–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Language, mind and culture. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1992). Metaphors and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. In M. Putz (Ed.), Thirty years of linguistic evolution (pp. 463–481). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A. (2010). Metaphor, nation, and the Holocaust. The concept of the body politic. New York & London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (2008). Freedom’s curse. The Atlantic Monthly, 3021, 28–29.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagarin, E. (1962). The anatomy of dirty words. New York: Lyle Stuart.Google Scholar
Scherer, C.R., & Sagarin, B.J. (2006). Indecent influence: The positive effects of obscenity on persuasion. Social Influence, 11, 138–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., & Masci, M. (1996). Politics is football: Metaphor in the discourse of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Society and Discourse, 7(2), 243–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wainryb, R. (2005). Expletive deleted: A good look at bad language. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Warnaar, M. (2013). Iranian foreign policy during Ahmadinejad: Ideology and actions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Juszczyk, Konrad, Barbara Konat & Małgorzata Fabiszak
2022. Speakers who metaphorize together – argue together. Metaphor and the Social World 12:2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Kujawiak, Aleksandra
2022. Dysfemistyczne konceptualizacje polityków i polityki w dyskursie internetowym (na przykładzie portali Wpolityce.pl i Newsweek.pl). Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Linguistica 56 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid & Hooshang Khoshsima
2021. Homo-schematic Metaphors: A Study of Metaphor Comprehension in Three Different Priming Conditions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:4 ► pp. 923 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 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.