نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه آموزش زبان و ادبیات، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
This study seeks to demonstrate that, in American political discourse against Iran, metaphor is not merely a rhetorical or decorative device, but a cognitive mechanism that structures audience perception and renders political action possible or justifiable. The central problem is how metaphorical language serves power and erases the boundary between “description” and “prescription.” To address this question, the study examines ten examples drawn from statements made by senior American officials between 2002 and 2026. If metaphor is more than a rhetorical device, how does it predetermine political decisions? Apparently, before any decision about war or sanctions is made, a linguistic “frame” takes shape that constrains the range of available options. The questions, then, are: Which conceptual domains have constructed this frame in American discourse against Iran, and how have they done so? Has the Iranian side, in response to this frame, lacked an independent linguistic mechanism of its own? The hypothesis is that metaphor, before serving as a tool of persuasion, functions as a tool of “constraint.” This study draws on two foundational theories: Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, pp. 3–6), which regards metaphor not as a feature of language but as a feature of thought, and Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black, 2004, pp. 34–39), which examines metaphor in relation to ideology and power. The analysis was conducted in three stages: identification, interpretation, and explanation. The findings can be summarized under three main themes. First, American discourse reduces Iran from a “state” to a “phenomenon,” ranging from the “axis of evil” to a “cult of death” and the “Stone Age.” Each time, Iranians are excluded from the circle of human beings with whom negotiation is possible. Second, violence is naturalized through embodied metaphors such as “strangling,” “maximum pressure,” and “collapse,” as though Iran’s economy and government were collapsing of their own accord, with no one responsible or to blame. Third, war is transformed into entertainment and spectacle through video games and promotional clips, rendering its human cost invisible. In response, Iranian discourse has also employed metaphors such as the “Great Satan” and “soft war,” both of which exclude the United States from the category of a “trustworthy party” and bring any form of compromise closer to being construed as betrayal. The conclusion is that the two sides, through two corresponding sets of metaphors, have narrowed the space for reconciliation. This study shows that metaphor, before serving as a tool of persuasion, functions as a tool for “determining the available options.” When an enemy is portrayed as “inherently evil” or “pre-civilizational,” negotiation appears not as a difficult choice but as a logical error. When sanctions are described as “strangulation,” responsibility is shifted away from the decision-maker. Accordingly, the hostility between the United States and Iran cannot be explained solely in terms of geopolitical rivalry or the nuclear program; language also plays a significant role in constructing and perpetuating this hostility. In summary, these metaphors ultimately advance three strategic objectives of the United States: entrenching Iran’s image as an existential threat, legitimizing pressure and military action, and reproducing regional hegemony.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)