Dehumanizing Metaphors used in the War on Terror Discourse

Abstract

This article attempts to explain how various speakers with a variety of religious and political viewpoints present and see the war on terror, in radically different ways. Van Dijk's (2004) approach, which was adapted from "Politics, Ideology, and Discourse," is used in this study to identify discursive structures that give rise to parochial, prejudiced, and antireligious remarks that are ideologically motivated. The CDA of the political speeches made after 9/11 has highlighted how discursive frameworks can be used to convey, carry out, perpetuate, and even embed ideological manipulations. Analysis has been done applying the macro methods of “positive self-representation” vs “negative other-representation.” The ‘Polarization’ of in-group and out-group ideologies, or US-THEM, is intricately related to the macro techniques of “positive self-representation” and “negative other-representation,” which have shown to be very perfect standards for evaluating beliefs and attitudes. It has been discovered that brutalization and derogation are frequently used in ideologically manipulated speeches that produce the predicted positive self-representation and negative other-representation. These rhetorical strategies are utilized to ameliorate, diminish, avoid, or exaggerate a situation.. They provide examples of the ideological purposes served by either positive self- or other-representation. The CDA used in this article to analyze sentiments regarding George W. Bush and Tony Blaire's speeches on the war on terror reveals these in-group/out-group distinctions. The results of this study may help students develop their critical thinking skills in language production and comprehension, as well as revive the outdated concept of language competency.