Functional Plurality of Language in Contextualised Discourse. Eighth Brno Conference on Linguistics Studies in English. Conference Proceedings. Brno, 12–13 September 2019
KapitolaLanguage and international relations: Linguistic support for other academic disciplines
Rok vydání: 2020https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-9767-2020-11
Abstrakt
This article outlines the content of an elective university course designed for domestic and international students, combining language and international relations. The course is intended to make students more sensitive to the linguistic intricacies of a specialist variety of English. The focus is on its written modes, particularly writing and reading academic (professional) texts dealing with complex foreign policy issues. As a result, students are expected to enhance their academic writing skills. The linguistic component of the course is backed up with a review of world affairs. Conversely, the field of international relations theory is enriched by a systematic study of language effects observed in the respective discourse. The interdisciplinarity of this enterprise benefits students with different academic and cultural backgrounds.
Klíčová slova
fictivity, international relations, intertextuality, metaphor, metonymy, phraseology, specialist discourse, terminology
Reference
Beer, F. A. and Hariman, R. (1996) ‘Realism and rhetoric in international relations.’ In: Beer, F. A. and Hariman, R. (eds) Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. 1–34.
Beer, F. A. and De Landtsheer, Ch. (eds) (2004) Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.Brown, Ch. and Ainley, K. (2009) Understanding International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706
Chilton, P. and Ilyin, M. (1993) ‘Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the “common European house”.’ Discourse & Society 4(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004001002
Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G. (1995) ‘Foreign policy by metaphor.’ In: Schäffner, Ch. And Wenden, A. L. (eds) Language and Peace. Aldershot: Dartmouth. 37–59.
Chilton, P. (1996a) Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.
Chilton, P. (1996b) ‘The meaning of security.’ In: Beer, F. A. and Hariman, R. (eds) Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. 193–216.
Davies, M. (2008–) ‘The Corpus of Contemporary American English (560 million words) [COCA].’ <https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/>.
Farrands, Ch. (1989) ‘The context of foreign policy systems: Environment and structure.’ In: Clarke, M. and White, B. (eds) Understanding Foreign Policy. The Foreign Policy Systems Approach. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. 84–108.
Goatly, A. (1997) The Language of Metaphors. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000
Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T. and Roach, S. C. (2008) International Relations. The Key Concepts, 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Hill, Ch. (2003) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hobbes, Th. (1943) Leviathan. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Ivie, R. L. (2004) ‘Democracy, war, and decivilizing metaphors of American insecurity.’ In: Beer, F. A. and De Landtsheer, Ch. (eds) Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. 75–90.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999) ‘Virtual reality.’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2), 77–103.
Marks, M. P. (2011) Metaphors in International Relations Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230339187
Master, P. (1991) ‘Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose.’ English for Specific Purposes 10(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90013-M
Musolff, A. (2004) Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516
Musolff, A. (2009) ‘Metaphor in the history of ideas and discourses: How can we interpret a medieval version of the body-state analogy?’ In: Musolff, A. and Zinken, J. (eds) Metaphor and Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_15
Musolff, A. (2010) ‘Political metaphor and bodies politic.’ In: Okulska, U. and Cap, P. (eds) Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.05mus
Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, Ch. and Baayen, H. (1999) ‘Morphological productivity across speech and writing.’ English Language and Linguistics 3(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674399000222
Rohrer, T. (1991) ‘To plow the sea: Metaphors for regional peace in Latin America.’ Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6(3), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0603_2
Semino, E. (2008) Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shimko, K. L. (2004) ‘The power of metaphors and the metaphors of power: The United States in the cold war and after.’ In: Beer, F. A. and De Landtsheer, Ch. (eds) Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. 199–215.
Skorczyńska, H. (2001) ‘Metaphor in scientific business journals and business periodicals: An example of the scientific discourse popularisation.’ Ibérica 3, 43–60.
Steen, G. J. (2009) ‘Three kinds of metaphor in discourse: A linguistic taxonomy.’ In: Musolff, A. and Zinken, J. (eds) Metaphor and Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_3
Stern, G. (1998) The Structure of International Society: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London and Washington: Pinter.
Thompson, S. (1996) ‘Politics without metaphors is like a fish without water.’ In: Mio, J. S. and Katz, A. N. (eds) Metaphor: Implications and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 185–201. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789316-11
Thornborrow, J. (1993) ‘Metaphors of security: A comparison of representation in defence discourse in post-Cold-War France and Britain.’ Discourse & Society 4(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004001006
Twardzisz, P. (2012a) ‘Derivational processes in the discourse of international relations. The case of press articles on international politics.’ Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 8(2), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2012-0015
Twardzisz, P. (2012b) ‘Virtual reality in cognitive linguistics and the psychological environment in foreign policy analysis.’ In: Hart, Ch. (ed.) Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings (vol. 1). 94–109. 10 November 2019 <http://www.uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings/volume_1>.
Twardzisz, P. (2013) The Language of Interstate Relations. In Search of Personification. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137332707
Twardzisz, P. (2014) ‘Futile pursuits of metonymic targets in political and legal contexts.’ Linguistik online 65(3), 87–103. 10 November 2019. https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/issue/view/345.
Twardzisz, P. (2015) ‘Identifying and measuring personification in journalistic discourse.’ In: Kosecki, K. and Badio, J. (eds) Empirical Methods in Language Studies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 151–164.
Twardzisz, P. and Nowosielska, B. (2019) ‘The salience of local schemas in a productive word-formation process.’ Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17(2), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00039.twa