Abstract
In the last few decades, death has unfortunately been an integral part of political discourse in the United States, where it is highly euphemized because it is one of the most delicate topics to talk about. This chapter analyzes the ways in which G.W. Bush and B. Obama euphemize death in their speeches related to war; more precisely, it determines cognitive mechanisms—either conceptual metaphor or conceptual metonymy—that underlie the formation of the most common euphemisms for death.
In this chapter, euphemisms are identified, analyzed and described as complex conceptual and linguistic structures, not only as rhetorical devices. As a part of political discourse, they can contribute to creating and modifying listeners’ conceptual frames. Also, belonging to two different political ideologies, both presidents might be expected to conceptualize and frame death in different ways and with different aims, which the linguistic study of euphemisms can illuminate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
New expressions arise from the association with the taboo, inventiveness, perception and creativity of the speaker or writer (Allan and Burridge 2006).
- 2.
- 3.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/human-sacrifice, retrieved 23 Oct 2015
- 4.
Human sacrifice, as a literal expression, is an abstract concept in contemporary times in civilized societies. The actual act of sacrificing humans can be seen in films and other works of fiction. Members of G.W. Bush’s audience have probably not witnessed a human offering in person.
References
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words. Taboo and censoring of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burridge, K. (2006). Taboo words. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 10, 2nd ed., pp. 452–455). Oxford: Elsevier.
Crespo Fernández, E. (2005). The language of death: Euphemism and conceptual metaphorization in Victorian obituaries. SKY Journal of Lingusitics, 19, 101–130.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 77–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). (2006). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In S. R. Harnad (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (pp. 20–32). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Grady, J. E. (1999). A typology for motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Knowles, M., & Moon, R. (2006). Introducing metaphor. London/New York: Routledge.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kuna, B. (2007). Identifikacija eufemizama i njihova tvorba u hrvatskom jeziku. Flumensia, 19(1), 95–113.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G. (2006a). Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lakoff, G. (2006b). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geerearts, R. Dirven, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 185–238). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago: The University Press of Chicago.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.
Pfaff, K. L., Gibbs Jr., R. W., & Johnsons, M. D. (1997). Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 18, 59–83.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Warren, B. (1992). What euphemisms tell us about the interpretation of words. Studia Linguistica, 46(2), 128–172.
Zanotto, M. S., & Palma, D. V. (2008). Opening Pandora’s box: Multiple readings of ‘a metaphor’. In M. S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting Meatphor in use (pp. 11–43). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moritz, I. (2017). Sacrificed, Lost or Gave Life for Their Country: Cognitive Analysis of Euphemisms for Death in G.W. Bush and B. Obama’s War Speeches. In: Parvaresh, V., Capone, A. (eds) The Pragmeme of Accommodation: The Case of Interaction around the Event of Death. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55759-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55759-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55758-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55759-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)