The idea of conceptual metaphors grew from work in cognitive linguistics in the late 1970s which identified prototype structures and image schemas. These both allow human beings to cope with new experiences by relating them to idealised mental models of similar situations. Lakoff and Johnson, in their 1980 book Metaphors We Live By, established that metaphor performs the same function: ‘Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature’ (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 3). An unfamiliar, often abstract target domain is explained in terms of a concrete and commonly experienced source domain; for example, the mystery of human life is conceptualised in terms of a journey. Metaphors are systematic: once a comparison is established, there is a tendency to perceive further similarities between the source and target domains, so that the metaphor extends itself and develops its own internal logic. In the life is a journey metaphor this involves the conception of decisions as forks or crossroads and problems as obstacles which must be overcome or worked around.

Conceptual metaphors can exert a powerful influence on humans’ perception of the world; they can become so ingrained that they cease to be descriptive or explanatory and actually form the central mechanism by which the target domain is experienced. They are also culturally specific and so very important in discourse that seeks to create a sense of community. For this reason the metaphors used in and about politics and, by extension, war have very significant implications.

The first conceptual metaphor this essay will consider is one very much embedded in the field of linguistics itself. It is known as the conduit metaphor and is one of the principle methods by which linguists and lay people talk about language.

The language is a conduit metaphor consists of three subordinate concepts: ideas are objects, linguistic expressions are containers and communication is sending (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 10). Ideas as objects are taken from the speaker’s mind and put into words and sentences; this is expressed in a sentence such as Try to pack more thoughts into fewer words. The hearer unpacks or extracts the ideas from the language, a concept seen in sentences such as I get a real feeling of anger out of his words. Ungerer and Schmid propose an intervening metaphor, that ‘linguistic communication is the transfer of thoughts and feelings by means of language’ (Ungerer and Schmid 1996: 119). This is found in sentences such as You need to get your ideas across. Altogether, linguistic communication seems to be conceptualised in terms of the making, sending, receiving and opening of parcels. In Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, Lakoff notes that, according to the conduit metaphor, the mind is a container, ideas are entities and communication involves taking them out of the mind, putting them into words and sending them to other individuals (Lakoff 1987: 450). He gives the idiomatic example of spilling the beans, in which the abstract entity of ‘information’ is represented by the beans, the mind or head by the (unnamed) container and the public revelation of the information by the spilling and scattering of the beans.

Rather than idiomatic expressions or academic linguistics I have chosen to examine help books on writing for evidence of the conduit metaphor, to see whether it is present in writing about writing as well as writing about spoken language.

The book Writing at University does contain examples of the conduit metaphor. The first stage in the process it describes is the student receiving the assignment and having to ‘unpack the question’ (49) which involves ‘leaving out the less important linking words and picking out...key words’ (48). This language is based on the reader or hearer part of the metaphor. Similarly, the authors envision a tutor saying to a student who has made a big statement, ‘"you need to unpack it", to "tease it out"’ (87). At the end of the book they state that tutor’s comments can be ‘very difficult to unpack’ (114). However, there are also allusion to reading as a process of digestion: ‘break it down into manageable chunks and try to assimilate things bit by bit’ (61).

References to the first part of the conduit metaphor, that ideas are objects and language a container for them, are rarer. The introduction mentions the student ‘gathering your thoughts and ideas together’ and ‘incorporating’ them ‘into your work’ (4); what the writer means gets ‘put in’ the essay (7). While reviewing the work the student is recommended to ask him- or herself, ‘Are too many ideas embedded in one sentence?’ (133). There is advice on dealing with ‘writer’s block’ (8) which could be interpreted as a seal on the container, preventing the writer from putting thoughts into language.

Despite the presence of the speaking and hearing or, in this case, writing and reading parts of the conduit metaphor, there is little use of the intervening metaphor of sending or giving the parcel of language. Instead the student is described as ‘presenting’ or ‘signalling’ ideas in his or her writing. The former still has an implication of transferring thoughts, but the latter appears unrelated to the conduit metaphor. Similarly, ideas have the potential to be ‘clear’ and ‘apparent’ (125), as if language is a medium lying over the ideas, able to be transparent or opaque.

The use of the conduit metaphor in Writing at University is much less frequent than might be expected. It may be that the authors are not involved in linguistics and therefore it is not as central to their concept of language. Maybe they are trying to avoid it because it would be unhelpful to readers. The authors themselves, however, indicate one of the major reasons why it is lacking:

The conduit metaphor cannot be used in this book about academic writing since academic writing is in itself a metalanguage.

The second conceptual metaphor this essay will deal with is that of war. Lakoff, writing in 1992, was concerned with the polemical metaphors used in discussions of the Gulf War. These concerns are relevant again today with the so-called war on terrorism and the resultant conflict in Afghanistan.

In politics one might expect metaphors to be abundant and used consciously for persuasive purposes, in the manner of classical rhetoric. However, politics can sometimes begin to believe in its own metaphors so emphatically that they become a constitutive part of its thinking. This, Lakoff argues, is the case with metaphors of war. One of the primary concepts is that war is politics pursued by other means. This is an adaptation of the philosophy put forward by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general, in Vom Kriege (On War). Politics is often conceptualised in terms of business: ‘efficient political management is seen as akin to efficient business management. As in a well-run business, a well-run government should keep a careful tally of costs and gains’ (Lakoff 1992: 464). The combination of these two concepts produces the metaphor war is a cost-benefit analysis.

International politics is founded on the concept the state is a person. It is desirable for a person to be healthy and strong; for the person-state health is equated with economic well-being and strength with military capability. Moreover, it is assumed that a rational person will act in his or her own interest, and the same applies to the state (Lakoff 1992: 466). Metaphors of commerce, combined with the state-as-person concept, result in the development of a view of war as a gamble. This in turn allows for the introduction of concepts of game theory, and thus the mathematical potential to turn qualitative effects on humans into quantifiable profits and losses.

Clausewitz’s metaphor requires a calculation of the costs and gains of going to war, where if the political gains exceed the costs, it should go ahead, but if the costs outweigh the gains, it should cease. However, not everything goes into this calculation: something is only a cost if it is first considered an asset, and if not it is seen as an ‘acceptable cost.’ Moreover, the cost-benefit calculation is a zero-sum system: ‘"costs" to the other side count as "gains" for us’ (Lakoff 1992: 479). Speeches made by the Prime Minister and by President Bush since the terrorist attacks of September 11 will be examined for evidence of this conceptual framework.

Tony Blair, addressing reporters when the bombing began, directly stated that strength for a state is military strength: ‘There is no greater strength for a British Prime Minister and the British nation at a time like this to know that the forces we are calling upon are amongst the best in the world.’ He also made implicit mention of the cost-benefit calculations made before going to war: ‘No country lightly commits forces to military action and the inevitable risks involved’ (reported in the Independent, October 7 2001).

Tony Blair made much use of the cost-benefit analysis metaphor in his speech to the Labour conference on October 2 2001, encapsulated in the phrase, ‘Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater.’ This statement is presented as the result of a careful examination of the potential gains and losses of entering or not entering the conflict. He talked of the Taliban’s and al-Qaida’s assets which must be destroyed to turn them into ‘gains’ for the allies: ‘the aim will be to eliminate their military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target their troops... to cut off terrorist financing and end safe havens for terrorists.’ Blair was also very concerned with the rationality of stopping one state using violence to further its own interests; he proposes that it is in all states’ self-interest to act together to maintain the status quo:

President Bush reinforced the metaphor war is a cost-benefit analysis in his State of the Union address to Congress. He promised to ‘direct every resource at our command...to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.’ He enumerated the assets the USA is risking in its campaign: ‘every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war’ (reported in Independent September 20 2001).

However, there are many parts of Blair and Bush’s speeches which do not reflect the Clausewitz metaphor but something more moralistic; this, for example, from Bush’s address to Congress: ‘Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.’ Language like this reflects a conceptual system in which America is unquestionably good and right; it is a hero vanquishing a villain. It is part of the metaphor war is a fairy tale, in which the ethically complex circumstances of war and international politics are related to the familiar children’s stories. Fairy tales contain clear-cut good and evil, personified in a hero, an innocent victim and a villain or monster who is inherently unreasonable. The ‘baddie’ commits an unprovoked and often violent offence and the hero must endure sacrifices, an arduous journey and a fierce battle to defeat the enemy and restore the moral balance (Lakoff 1992: 466-7).

It is in this scenario that Bush and Blair appear to be imagining themselves, though they are not rescuing a princess but slaying a dragon that has hurt them and threatens to do so again; hence, from Bush’s address: ‘Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.’ Blair said at the end of October: ‘We are a principled nation, and this is a principled conflict...We have a job to do’ (reported in Independent October 31 2001).

In accordance with the fairy tale metaphor, the villainy of the attacks is repeatedly emphasised, as well as the inherent evil and stubborn unreasonableness of the Taliban and al-Qaida. Al-Qaida are represented by Bush as ‘the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century...fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism.’ The Taliban are associated with the terrorist network thus: ‘By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder,’ which opens them up to all sorts of denouncements of their own. In Blair’s conference speech he listed all the parts of the regime that ‘we should seek to destroy’, from drug production to the banning of sport, and the treatment of women which is ‘almost too revolting to be credible.’ The enemy is dehumanised; one comment piece describes bin Laden ‘skulking from cave to cave’ like a lizard (Independent September 24 2001). Another stresses their apparent backwardness: ‘What do we set against [their] medieval hatreds?’ (Independent October 7 2001). Such an inhuman and uncivilised villain cannot be reasoned with, so all Taliban offers of extradition talks were summarily rejected; Bush declared, ‘When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations...There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt’ (reported in Independent October 15 2001). Since there is no possibility of rational talks, the heroes are forced to attack, as Blair in his conference speech insisted, ‘There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.’

Blair and Bush seem very certain of the result of the war, because they are in the role of hero: ‘The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain,’ said Bush, and Blair echoed this in his conference speech: ‘This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory not theirs.’ The idea that conflict has a neat ending with a clear victor is part of the fairy tale metaphor, though the leaders are keen to stress that humanitarian involvement in the region will continue. This is part of a very romantic view of the restoration of the moral balance in Afghanistan: ‘out of the shadow of this evil, should emerge lasting good: destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it is found,’ said Blair. Bush promised to ‘lift the dark threat of violence from...our future.’ Harold Evans sees this brave new world as the point of the war: ‘In this crisis, the aching void has been for inspiration, for a portrait of the better world, the "lasting good" that should emerge from the "shadow of evil."

Conceptual metaphors are a useful way of talking about the powerful mindsets that influence every sphere of our lives. The conduit metaphor of language is applicable to an extent, but has its limitations. The fairy-tale and cost-benefit analysis metaphors of war seem to be more successful; this may be because they are actually constitutive of the discourse of war and therefore influence its development. In ‘Metaphor and War’ Lakoff expresses concern that such metaphors obscure the violent reality of war, but years earlier in Metaphors We Live By he may have been closer to their true power and potentially dangerous effects:

It remains to be seen how the conflict in Afghanistan ends; but Bush and Blair will almost certainly present it as ‘happily ever after.’

Goddard, Cliff (1998) Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray (1996) ‘Semantics and Cognition.’ In Shalon Lappin (ed.) Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell pp. 539-59.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George (1992) ‘Metaphor and War: The metaphor system used to justify war in the gulf.’ In Martin Pütz (ed.) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp.463-481.

Saeed, John I. (1997) Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ungerer, Friedrich and Schmid, Hans-Jörg (1996) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.

Anderson, Bruce, ‘We must ignore the peace lobby and show no restraint.’ Independent September 24 2001.
From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=95609

Blair’s speech to Labour Party Conference reproduced in Independent October 2 2001.
From http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=97265 and
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=97264

Blair’s speech after bombing began reproduced in Independent October 7 2001.
From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=98226

Buncombe, Andrew, ‘Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden.’ Independent October 15 2001.
From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99527

Bush’s State of the Union address reproduced in Independent September 20 2001.
From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=95277 and
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=95278 and
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=95279

Creme, Phyllis and Lea, Mary R. (1997) Writing at University: A Guide for Students. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Evans, Harold, ‘America loves a good guy.’ Independent October 7 2001.
From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=98121

Grice, Andrew and Waugh, Paul, ‘Blair pledges "We will not flinch and we will not fail."’ Independent October 31 2001.
From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=102422

Essay index! -or- Take me home!