Legitimation And Delegitimation Of Terrorism With Metaphor

This thesis reports the exploration of the function of metaphor in constructing arguments in argumentative discourses. This study mainly focuses on political media discourse. A small corpus, consisting of the media coverage about the PRISM event,is established. A comprehensive view of metaphor, argument and legitimation is adopted and both quantitative and qualitative approaches are also adopted. The aim of the study is to analyze how the two sides of the PRISM event(supporters and opponents of the PRISM program) construct their own argumentative systems via metaphors and what legitimation strategies they use to strengthen their own arguments and reject the opposite side.Based on the analysis, the major findings are listed as follows:(1) the supporters use nine conceptual metaphors, among which six are obtained from relevant discourse metaphors: ‘THE PRISM EVENT AS A WAR(‘U.S. IS A VICTIM’ and‘DISCLOSURE IS AN ATTACK’) ’, ‘DISCLOSURE OF PRISM AS A CRIME(‘SNOWDEN IS A CRIMINAL’)’, ‘PRISM AS A PERSON(‘PRISM IS A HELPER’ and ‘PRISM IS A HERO’)’, ‘PRISM AS AN OBJECT(‘PRISM IS A BALANCE’ and ‘PRISM IS A TOOL’)’, ‘PRISM AS A BUILDING’, ‘LAWFUL IS DOWN’, ‘LAW AS A CONTAINER’, ‘U.S. GOVERNMENT AS AN OBJECT(‘U.S.GOVERNMENT IS A TRANSPARENT OBJECT’)’ and ‘U.S. GOVERNMENT AS AN PERSON(‘U.S. GOVERNMENT IS A CLEANER’)’.(2) The opponents employ eight conceptual metaphors, seven of which are extracted from relevant discourse metaphors: ‘THE PRISM EVENT AS A WAR(‘U.S.IS AN INVADER’, ‘PRISM IS A WEAPON’ and ‘INTERNET IS A BATTLEFIELD’)’, ‘PRISM AS A PERSON(‘PRISM IS AN ACTOR’)’, ‘PRISM AS A CRIME(‘NSA IS A THIEF’)’, ‘PRISM AS A PLACE(‘PRISM IS A PRISON’)’,‘PRISM AS AN OBJECT(‘PRISM IS A LUXURY’)’, ‘LAW AS A CONTAINER’,‘U.S. GOVERNMENT AS AN OBJECT(‘U.S. GOVERNMENT IS A NON-TRANPARENT OBJECT’)’ and ‘U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A PERSON(‘U.S.GOVERNMENT IS A PATIENT’, ‘U.S. GOVERNMENT IS A DICTATOR’, ‘U.S.GOVERNMENT IS AN UNKIND FRIEND’)’.(3) Most of the conceptual metaphors identified in the corpus are composed of one or more discourse metaphors. These conceptual metaphors are mostly considered neutral. The language users mainly depend on the discourse metaphors to expresstheir different attitudes and propose their opposite arguments.(4) Metaphors do have the function of constructing arguments. Based on the further analysis of previous metaphors, it is found that the supporters’ argumentative system is composed of five arguments, among which the overarching argument is‘American government’s action is just’, and four sub-arguments are ‘PRISM is useful’,‘PRISM is lawful’, ‘PRISM is acceptable’ and ‘American government is good’. The opponents’ argumentative system consists of five opposite arguments, among which the overarching argument is ‘American government’s action is unjust’, and four sub-arguments are ‘PRISM is useless’, ‘PRISM is unlawful’, ‘PRISM is unacceptable’and ‘American government is bad’.(5) In the process of constructing their argumentative system, the supporters employ three strategies to legitimize the PRISM program, that is, moral evaluation,rationalization, and authorization. But the opponents also use these three strategies to delegitimize the program. In addition, the opponents use a different strategy, that is,mythopoesis. They refute each other with those tit-for-tat arguments so as to form the dynamics of argumention on legitimation and delegitimation.