Metaphors as Ammunition: The Case of Queen Boudicca

Marijana Dragas^*

Departments of Karst Agriculture, Food Technology, Commercial Business with Entrepreneurship, Marko Marulic Polytechnics of Knin, Knin, the Republic of Croatia

Abstract

Sharing the interest in the influence of political discourse on collective memory and cognition, we wanted to investigate the ways of building and promoting ideologies using the ideographs and conceptual metaphors in political discourse. For this purpose, we have used a speech of the ancient Queen Boudicca, also known as Boadicea, and in Welsh as Buddug (d. AD 60 or 61), who ruled the Celtic tribe of the Iceni and stood up against the Roman occupation.The analysis was conducted by applying the Circular Radiation Method of political speech analysis, which is actually a modification of the Wave Method of political speech analysis, developed by Matthias Krug in 2010. (Krug, 2010: 11). The analytical steps include: a). Intensive reading of the speech transcripts to identify the main topics; b). Putting the speech into the historical and political context and finding the ideological relevance of the speaker’s words; c). Identifying the ideographs and conceptual metaphors used by the speaker, analysing their ideological relevance and trying to suggest the possible ways of affecting the audience's consciousness and political identity; d). Providing a comparison and contrast of the results acquired from the analysis. The empirical findings from this paper provide a new understanding of the conceptual metaphor as one of the most important rhetorical figures in political discourse, serving for successful political persuasion and promotion of ideology. Although it is based on a small sample of speeches, the results of the research suggest that the extralinguistic context affects the choice of the conceptual metaphors.

Keywords

Boudicca, Conceptual Metaphor, Ideograph, Ideology, Political Discourse, Collective Memory, Cognition

Received: July 6, 2015
Accepted: July 31, 2015
Published online: September 10, 2015

@ 2015 The Authors. Published by American Institute of Science. This Open Access article is under the CC BY-NC license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

1. Introduction

1.1. Introductive Remarks

The topics of political discourse, power and ideology have increasingly been raising questions in the area of linguistic sciences. Their interactions with ideographs and conceptual metaphors have also been the matter of political language analysis. Van Dijk (2002:15), for example, studies the interaction between ideologies and other forms of socially shared mental representations, such as specific group knowledge and cultural common ground. Lakoff (2002) analyses the linguistic differences between the Liberals and Conservatives, showing how the use of conceptual metaphors reflects the underlying cognitive models and political attitudes. Fairclough (1992: 194-195) argues that metaphors affect and structure ″the way we think and the way we act, and our systems of knowledge and belief in a pervasive and fundamental way″.

This research builds on the earlier studies in the fields of Political Discourse Analysis, Critical Analysis of Metaphors in political speech and Cognitive Linguistics, which deal with the metaphor as one of the most important rhetorical figures in political discourse.

It investigates the conceptual metaphors used in the speech by the mythical Queen Boudicca, trying to sort them out, classify them and grasp the political message behind them, including an explanation about their possible impact on cognition, which makes a contribution to the growing area of research on the importance of the conceptual metaphors in political discourse.

1.2. Explanation of the Fundamental Terms

Boudicca’s approach to political speech makes a great basis for the speech analysis method suggested by this paper. Special attention is paid to the ideographs, as essential signal words that provoke emotional responses from the audience, and the conceptual metaphors she used as persuasive devices for gaining political significance and power.

The use of rhetorical figures and linguistic manipulation make the backbone of any political discourse. Consequently, the conceptual metaphors fit into relevant components of such discourse. Political success depends on the ability of politicians to arouse emotions through metaphors in order to influence public opinion. (Charteris-Black, 2004:1)

The term discourse in a nutshell relates to communication in written or oral form, so political discourse may refer to written or oral communication regarding politics or political issues. It takes place in the public sphere, and involves all participants of political processes-from the very politicians to the general public, the media and people of different political views. (Van Dijk, 1995a:13) The purpose of political discourse is to organize social relations in order to gain the trust of broad masses and the acquisition of political power.

Besides the conceptual metaphor, there are numerous factors which greatly affect the quality and perception of political speech. The ideographs and ideology are certainly among them.

The term ideograph was introduced in 1980 by American rhetorical theorist, writer, and social critic Michael Calvin McGee as ″an ordinary-language term found in political discourse. It is a high-order abstraction representing collective commitment to a particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal. It warrants the use of power, excuses behaviour and belief which might otherwise be perceived as eccentric or antisocial, and guides behaviour and belief into channels easily recognized by a community as acceptable and laudable.″ (McGee, 1980:15)

Condit and Lucaites (2005) argue that the public is ″ideographically constructed″, pointing to the existence of the rhetorical struggle over the meanings of shared ideographs.

Edwards & Winkler (2005) suggest that the images used strategically in the public sphere reflect not only beliefs, attitudes, and values of their creators, but those of the society at large. ″Cartoonists must use cultural references that readers can easily understand″ (Edwards & Winkler, 2005: 487). Moore (1997) points to the cigarette as a representational ideograph for pro - and anti-smoking campaigns.

To put it differently, the ideographs belong to the group of virtue words - words frequently used in the media and politics for the purpose of developing support for political attitudes. They are marked by chevrons or angle brackets (<>). Words like <tyranny>, <freedom>, <transparency>, <braveness>, <fairness>, <history> etc. express the essence of particular ideology because they are preserved in cultural memory as signals which demand an appropriate emotional response from the audience. Meanings are culturally-conditioned and culturally-constructed, because they present a group of ideas shared among members of specific cultures, which means they are also ideological. The ideographs serve to invoke those historically shared ideas stored in the collective memory of people belonging to specific cultures. These shared ideas: attitudes, values, assumptions and practices actually build ideologies - group of ideas organising and interpreting reality.

According to the linguistic features listed above, the following chapter aims at discussing the notions of ideology, myth and metaphor as interrelated in the ˝common discourse function of persuasion and the expressive potential for cognitive and emotional engagement.˝ (Charteris-Black, 2011: 13)

1.3. Research Questions, Aims and Hypotheses

The paper aims to test the following hypotheses:

1)  The conceptual metaphors in Queen Boudicca’s speech serve as a persuasive tool, or a means to promote her own ideology and achieve political power;

2)  Boudicca’s choice of conceptual metaphors in political discourse depends on the extralinguistic context;

3)  Living in a male–dominated world affected Boudicca’s cognition and rhetoric (the use of metaphors).

In particular, we will try to answer the following research questions:

1)  What kind of ideographs did Queen Boudicca use in her speech?

2)  Which conceptual metaphors did she use and what were their most common source domains?

3)  What are the ideas and political aims behind these metaphors? What kind of emotions do they evoke?

4)  What are the possible effects of Boudicca’s speech on the audience?

Due to practical constraints, this paper cannot provide a comprehensive review on the existence of common features in women’s political discourse and it is beyond its scope to examine whether there are male-like and female-like conceptual metaphors underlying the political discourse in general.

2. Corpus and Methodology

2.1. Corpus

The corpus analysed by this research includes the transcripts of Boudicca's speech to her army (60 BC) taken from the English translation of the fragments from the works of the two Roman historians, Tacitus and Cassius Dio, found in Adler's article analysing Boudicca's speeches. (Adler, 2008: 187-189).

These speech transcripts have been chosen due to their historical significance, uncompromising rhetoric and contextual relevance they employ in order to conduct a detailed and transparent analysis of the themes they deal with, including the use of the ideographs and conceptual metaphors.

Boudicca's speech to her army (60 BC), as described by the Roman historian Cassius Dio¹, provoked warlike acclamations from her soldiers. It actually marked her accession to power and made her a leader of most exceptional respect among her people. She succeeded in presenting herself as an avenger and a saviour from the Roman occupation.

2.2. The Circular Radiation Method of Political Speech Analysis: A Cognitive Approach

The Circular Radiation Method of political speech analysis is actually a modification of the Wave Method of political speech analysis, developed by Matthias Krug in 2010. (Krug, 2010: 11)

Krug's method is based upon the effect produced by a stone thrown into still water, producing waves of increasing dimensions and yet diminishing height in an outward direction. (Ibidem, p. 12)

He analysed political speeches in 6 fields:

1.   KEY THEMES: main topics of the speeches analysed;

2.   COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS: linguistic features and cognitive mechanisms employed;

3.   LINGUISTIC PRODUCT: key linguistic features;

4.   ORAL COMMUNICATION: politician's rhetorical skills;

5.   IMPACT AND EFFECT ON THE RECIPIENTS: emotional effect caused by the speeches;

6.   MEDIA REPRESENTATION OF SPEECH: mass-media. (Krug, 2010:11)

When a drop of water or a stone thrown into the water falls onto a still water surface, it generates a set of waves travelling outward in a circular direction. These waves transfer energy which travels outward from its point of origin. This natural phenomenon resembles the way in which the energy in the form of political message is transmitted from the politician as the source to the audience as the recipients and later reproduced by the mass media.

This effect may be seen in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. A wave in water.

source:http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/s10-01-waves-and-electromagnetic-radi.html.

Figure 2. Circular Radiation Method of political speech analysis/A cognitive approach.

2.2.1. Explanation of the Circular Radiation Method

Figure 2 presents the most important elements of the analysis employed in this paper. It is a modification of Krug's Wave Method, endeavouring to further analyse the cognitive stage of political speech, especially the ideographs and conceptual metaphors, placing them in a specific historical and political context and explaining in detail the possible impact of political message on the audience.

The analytical method applied in this paper is conducted using the following key, shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Key analytical features.

2.2.2. Analytical Procedures

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of the ideographs and conceptual metaphors in the creation of reality and transmission of political messages by employing a multidisciplinary qualitative method of investigation.

The first analytical step will include intensive reading of the speech transcripts to identify the main topics. The next step will be putting the speech into the historical and political context and finding the ideological relevance of the speaker’s words.

In addition, we will identify the ideographs and conceptual metaphors used by the speaker, analyse their ideological relevance and try to suggest the possible ways of affecting the audience's consciousness and political identity.

Finally, we will provide a comparison and contrast of the results acquired from the analysis.

3. Theorethical Framework

3.1. Introductive Remarks on the Basic Theoretical Approaches

Given the scope of this paper and specific topics which it deals with, the theoretical framework will include the basic postulates of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

In other words, the paper is set in the contexts of the humanities and social sciences, providing some explanations on discursive strategies employed in gaining political power and influence, as well as ideology promotion.

3.2. Theoretical Approaches to the Metaphor

3.2.1. The Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

Ever since the ancient times, the metaphor has been investigated and described by many philosophers, writers and linguists. Thus, Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was the first scholar to point to the basic function of the metaphor as the transfer of meaning from one concept to another. According to him, the Metaphor is the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion". (Aristotle, Poetics 21, 1457b9–16 and 20–22)²

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary³ defines 'metaphor' as:

1.   a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food for thought);

2.   a thing symbolic of something else.

Metaphorical value exists in the meaning which it constructs in human consciousness and which is an individual experience. This means that the metaphors have both cognitive and creative functions.

The main theoretical premise behind this research is Lakoff and Johnson's book Metaphors We Live By (1980), as one of the fundamental works of the Contemporary Metaphor Theory. Through an interdisciplinary study based on the postulates of philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, and intercultural comparison, they have moved the metaphorical function beyond language and, thus, beyond questions of representation. To these thinkers, our ordinary conceptual system … is fundamentally metaphorical in nature, as it is grounded in the universal and yet particular facts of the body. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:3)

Thus, they define metaphor as follows: The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 5) The human mind is, therefore, a system of concepts, or ideas about reality occurred during physiological activities of conceptualizing within the human body, which means that language is embodied.

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) also defined two main conceptual domains within the conceptual metaphors:

a)  source domain, an experiential knowledge framework from which we draw metaphorical expressions in order to understand another conceptual domain;

b)  target domain, the knowledge framework that we try to understand through the use of the source domain.

The conceptual metaphor is reflected in the ability to connect the meanings of these two domains (Borčić, 2010: 138). We may notice that the conceptual metaphor as a cognitive ability is actually reflected in language.

Consequently, there are two levels of the metaphors: the metaphorical linguistic expression (linguistic metaphor) and conceptual metaphor. The conceptual metaphor is characterised by a set of mappings from the source domain to the target domain. A mapping is a systematically arranged set of correspondences that exist between the source domain and target domain. (Stanojević, 2009: 341)

Kövecses (2010:14) claims: ″This set of mappings obtains between basic constituent elements of the target. To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target pairing. It is these mappings that provide much of the meaning of the metaphorical linguistic expressions (or linguistic metaphors) that make a particular conceptual metaphor manifest. The mappings are motivated by pre-linguistic image schemas reflecting space, time, moving, controlling, and other basic elements of embodied human experience.″

For example, in the conceptual metaphor Life is journey, the source domain of the journey is commonly used to explain the target domain of life:

1.   After university I was at a crossroads, and I didn’t know which way to go.

2.   You want to know where we are going to be this Christmas? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it; it’s only July now! You can’t just go through life with your eyes closed!

3.   His life took an unexpected direction after he met her.

4.   I set out to be a doctor, but I liked English so much that I became an English teacher!⁴

The conceptual mappings may also be displayed as in the table below:

Table 2. Conceptual mappings (acc. to Stanojević, 2009: 341).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) identify three kinds of conceptual metaphors:

a)  Orientational Metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:15), positive concepts have ‘upward’ orientation and negative concepts ‘downward’ orientation:

MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN: Speak up, please. Keep your voice down, please.

HEALTHY IS UP; SICK IS DOWN: Lazarus rose from the dead. He fell ill.

CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN: Wake up. He sank into a coma.

CONTROL IS UP; LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN: I'm on top of the situation. He is under my control.

b)  Ontological Metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26): We can perceive of personification as a form of ontological metaphor. In personification, human qualities are given to nonhuman entities. Personification is very common in literature, but it also abounds in everyday discourse, as the examples below show:

His theory explained to me the behaviour of chickens raised in factories.

Life has cheated me.

Inflation is eating up our profits.

Cancer finally caught up with him.

The computer went dead on me.

Kövecses (2002: 39) supports this as follows: ″Theory, life, inflation, cancer, computer are not humans, but they are given qualities of human beings, such as explaining, cheating, eating, catching up, and dying. Personification makes use of one of the bestsource domains we have - ourselves. In personifying nonhumans as humans, we can begin to understand them a little better.″

c)   Structural Metaphor: According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:14), structural metaphors are cases where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another. They give two examples of structural metaphors that we meet in our everyday lives: LABOR IS A RESOURCE and TIME IS A RESOURCE. Both of them are culturally embedded in our experience of material resources, that is, raw materials or fuel sources. Both of them are useful: Fuel is used for heating, transportation, or production. Raw materials are bases of finished products. Both of these material resources may be quantified and given a value. In both cases, the kind of material is important for achieving the purpose regardless of the particular piece or quantity of it.

Another explanation is given by Lakoff and Turner (1989): ″When we are living by the metaphors LABOR IS A RESOURCE and TIME IS A RESOURCE, as we do in our culture, we tend not to see them as metaphors at all. But . . . both are structural metaphors that are basic to Western industrial societies.″

In short, the Conceptual Metaphor Theory opposed the popular view of metaphor as a mere decorative means in the language. This theory holds that the conceptual metaphor is a central concept of language, culture and thought, which may be summarized as follows:

Thought and knowledge are metaphorically structured.

Metaphor is crucial to abstract language and included into physical experience (embodied).

Metaphor is ideological. (Deignan, 2005: 13)

Anthropologist James W. Fernandez (1986) has a similar approach to metaphor which assumes the trope's embedment and the intellectual obligation to foreground principles of cultural relativism. To Fernandez, metaphor is a strategic predication of identity that leads to performance.

Kövecses (2002) supports Lakoff and Johnson's ideas about the human conceptual system as metaphorically structured and defined, which is reflected in language and means that that we create concepts (love, happiness, anger, fear, time, wealth, desire, etc.) on realistic, physical bases (human body, buildings, machines, animals, plants, etc.).

Charteris-Black (2004: 21) defines metaphor as a linguistic representation that results from the shift in the use of a word or phrase from the context or domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur, thereby causing semantic tension. It potentially has linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive characteristics.

3.2.2. Lakoff's Moral Politics, Political Mind and a Fairy Tale of the Just War

George Lakoff, one of the founders of the modern Cognitive Linguistics, analyses the phenomenon that we might call the politics of language. Lakoff wants to show that modern public discourse is largely politicized and makes suggestions about the ways in which the brain processes information from the field of politics.

In Metaphor, Morality and Politics (1995), Lakoff advocates the hypothesis that people’s political judgement is largely determined by the unconscious metaphors. According to him, the Liberal and Conservative positions include the two very distinctive conceptual models of the ideal family. The Conservative worldview is oriented towards the ‘Strict Father Model’, while the Liberals represent an ideal of family life based on the ‘Nurturant Parent’.

‘Strict Father Morality’ includes a traditional nuclear family with the father having primary responsibility for the well-being of the household. The mother has day-to-day responsibility for the care of the house and details of raising the children. But the father has primary responsibility for setting overall family policy, and the mother's job is to be supportive of the father and to help carry out the father's views on what should be done. Ideally, she respects his views and supports them. (Wheeler, 1999: 145⁵) This worldview is imbued with self-reliance, self-discipline and awe of the father as the greatest authority, based on a system of reward and punishment.

In contrast, the second model, called the ’Nurturant Parent Model’, represents compassion, restitution, fair play and fair distribution of goods. In this model, the children obey their parents and respect their community. There is no fear of punishment. Good communication is the most important thing here because parents are seen as guides providing generous support for their children during the lifetime. Lakoff introduces this model in the following way: The family is of either one or two parents. Two are generally preferable, but not always possible. The primal experience behind this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from one's community and from caring for and about others.

So, the underlying metaphors at the heart of each moral theory do affect the human mind: they shape our political attitudes and ideology. Thus we construct political attitudes in light of our family values. These are not only attitudes about the right course of public policies, they are ethical attitudes about what makes a good and honest person and a good and honest nation. These conceptual models therefore affect the public life in general, from culture and education to political life.

Politics is not a mere abstract idea about the public order, administration and power; it is embodied. Cognitive abilities, including thinking, communication skills and forming moral evaluations, depend on different bodily features within each person.

Thus, our mind is shaped by the processes happening due to our natural constitution, which implies that our social and political worldviews are regulated by the unconscious mechanisms within our brain. According to Lakoff (2008:1), Social change is material (who controls what wealth), institutional (who runs what powerful institutions), and political (who wins elections). But the main battlefield of the culture war is the brain, especially how the brain functions below the level of consciousness.

The opening lines of Lakoff's article Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf (1991) suggest that politicians use various metaphorical expressions in order to justify political actions that would otherwise be publicly condemned. Lakoff deals with a set of conceptual metaphors that, according to him, influenced the public acceptance of the Gulf War: State-as-Person system, The Fairy Tale of the Just War, The Ruler-for-State Metonymy, The Expert‘s Metaphor, The Causal Commerce system, Risks-as-Gambles, International Politics is Business, Clausewitz Metaphor, War as a Violent Crime and others.

Lakoff (1991) substantiated this with the following fairy-tale scenario:

Characters: A villain, a victim, and a hero. The victim and the hero may be the same person.

According to him, Metaphors can kill. The discourse over whether to go to war in the Gulf was a panorama of metaphor. Secretary of State Baker saw Saddam Hussein as sitting on our economic lifeline. President Bush portrayed him as having a stranglehold on our economy. General Schwarzkopf characterized the occupation of Kuwait as a rape that was ongoing. The President said that the US was in the gulf to protect freedom, protect our future, and protect the innocent, and that we had to push Saddam Hussein back. Saddam Hussein was painted as a Hitler. It is vital, literally vital, to understand just what role metaphorical thought played in bringing us in this war.

This scenario is a powerful metaphorical device, which actually enables a unilateral description of the conflict and justifies the decision of the government to declare war. Of course, the hero state is presented as highly moral, honest and brave, while the villain state is immoral, evil and unfair.

3.2.3. Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA)

The Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA), as one of the key theories in political discourse analysis, was developed by J. Charteris-Black. This approach to metaphor analysis deals with the underlying (and possibly unconscious) intentions of language users. (Charteris-Black, 2004: 34)

As metaphor is one of the most efficient persuasive devices, it is typically applied in political rhetoric. Charteris-Black aims at demonstrating the importance of metaphor because of its role in the development of ideology in areas such as politics and religion, where influencing judgements is a central discourse goal. (Ibidem, p. 9)

He argues that cognitive semantic approach to political metaphor analysis may not be separated from the specific communication contexts governing their roles, meaning that their cognitive value may not be isolated from their persuasive functions in particular discourse.

Understanding the specific conceptual metaphor requires the understanding of the speaker's intentions in a particular context because metaphors are matter of speakers' choice. (Ibidem, pp. 10-11)

Bearing in mind the basic postulates of the Cognitive Semantics, the Theory of Conceptual Metaphor, and Discourse Analysis as interdisciplinary scientific approaches, we support Charteris Black's claim that There are important implications of metaphor and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) for users of English because of its concern how language is used in the domains of social life that they will possibly encounter. (Charteris-Black, 2004: 42)

He also argues that Critical Discourse Analysis should therefore spread its wings to examine the language that characterises particular disciplines, in terms of the underlying concepts that such uses embody; in particular, drawing attention to when there are social relations that are entailed by such language use. Critical Metaphor Analysis would seem to be a precondition for making knowledge more accessible. (Ibidem, p. 43)

According to him, there are three stages of CMA:

1)  Metaphor identification identifies metaphors present in particular text, and the possible semantic tension between a source domain (literal) and a target domain (metaphorical). This stage includes two parts: preliminary identification of metaphors, and confirmation of identified metaphors. The preliminary identification of metaphors understands intensive reading of the corpus aiming at identification of the underlying metaphors, which is based on the criteria found in the following definition of metaphor: ″A metaphor is a linguistic representation that results from the shift in the use of a word or phrase from the context or domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur, thereby causing semantic tension. It potentially has linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive characteristics.″ (Charteris-Black, 2004: 21)

2)  Metaphor interpretation deals with the classification of the social relations underlying the metaphors identified;

3)  Metaphor explanation considers the interaction of metaphors within the context in which they occur. (Ibidem, 34-35)

The second stage of CMA includes the selection of the metaphors identified in the first stage, which will be included in the further analysis. The further analysis deals with these metaphors in the sense of their usage. In other words, it analyses whether they are used generally or almost always metaphorically. If they are used almost always metaphorically, it shows that there is no longer semantic tension and the metaphors are excluded from the final analysis.

In order to clarify the identification stage, Charteris-Black provides the example of one of George W. Bush’s most frequently used metaphors after the September 11 attacks: to fight a crusade against terror." Wondering whether this metaphor could be used in a critical metaphor analysis of Bush’s speeches, Charteris-Black looks for the phrase crusade against" in the University of Birmingham’s Bank of English. His results point out that the most common words following this phrase are corruption" (n=12); slavery" (n=7); communism" (n=7); abortion" (n=6); Islam"(n=6); and poverty" (n=5). Considering the results above, Charteris-Black explains: ″Even though these metaphoric uses are more frequent in the corpus than literal ones, I propose that they are still metaphoric because a semantic tension results from the use of a term from the domain of religious struggle in non-religious domain of activity (i.e. Social reform). ″ (Ibidem, 37).

He also points out that any word might be a metaphor, depending on the context and the speaker's intentions. Identifying metaphors in this way helps us to identify the proportion of the metaphorical uses of the word and to exclude its literal uses from the further procedures (quantification).

As for the interpretation stage, he supports Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory, suggesting that the human mind is inherently embodied, thought is mainly unconscious, and abstract concepts are fundamentally metaphorical. Interpretation includes the identification of conceptual metaphors, and the explanation of their roles in building socially relevant representations. (Charteris-Black, 2004: 38-39).

Charteris-Black identifies the conceptual metaphor POLITICS IS RELIGION in the George W. Bush’s metaphor ″to fight a crusade against terror", suggesting that in order to make a claim for a conceptual metaphor, there is necessarily a need for other linguistic forms that are motivated by the same idea." (Ibidem, 38).

For example, he finds the evidence for the conceptual metaphor POLITICS IS RELIGION in Bush’s famous phrase the axis of evil", which makes this conceptual metaphor worth considering in the analysis of Bush’s political discourse.

The third stage of CMA, called Metaphor explanation, includes the clarification of ideological motives in political discourse.

He also suggests that identification of a conceptual metaphor, such as POLITICS IS CONFLICT, is not only a way of interpreting the connections between literal and metaphorical words, but it also provides an explanation for some substantial differences in ideological points of view. Therefore, one politician may often use POLITICS IS ETHICS while another one may stand for POLITICS IS CONFLICT. Each of the conceptual metaphors mentioned above uncovers a distinctive ideological motivation.

According to him ideology is a belief system through which a particular social group creates the meaning that justify its existence to itself and an exercise in self-legitimization". (Ibidem, 21).

Although he claims that metaphor is among the most important linguistic and cognitive resources used by politicians to justify their vision and self-legitimization, he admits that it is not the only way of representing an ideology. However, as metaphors arouse emotions, they bring the abstract concepts closer to human nature and personality. Thus, metaphors are crucial linguistic devices for constructing and communicating ideologies.

In addition, Charteris-Black brings the concept of myth as one of the most usual ways to communicate ideology. He defines it as follows: ″A myth is a story that provides an explanation of all the things for which explanations are felt to be necessary. These could be the origins of the universe, the causes of good and evil, the origin of the elements, of male and female, or anything else that is believed to be mysterious.″ (Charteris-Black, 2004: 22) In his opinion, a critical analysis of political discourse is very important because it provides a narrative clarification of the metaphors used by politicians, including the distinction between a myth and reality.

In conclusion to this part, CMA will be applied to the metaphors used in Queen Boudicca’s speech transcripts in order to identify and interpret those metaphors, taking into consideration the context of the speech given.

3.3. Theoretical Approaches to Discourse Analysis

3.3.1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

This paper will also apply some basic principles of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which appeared during the 1970s as included into the textual analysis and discourse that deals with the role of language in constructing power relations within society. (Wodak, 2001: 3)

Generally speaking, we could say that there are two types of CDA, which were developed by Norman Fairclough in a series of articles and books published since 1989. The first type of CDA focuses on the ways of reproducing unequal power in conversation like: topic control, interactions and turn-taking. Actually, this type implies in which way power directs the first speaker in order, as well as the duration and the topic of the conversation. (Pennycook, 2001: 85-89)

The second type does not deal with the structure of the text, but with the content itself, focusing on the ways of reproducing ideologies in discourses. This type aims at showing the underlying ideological systems and representations, including their relation to the social system. This type of analysis treats ideologies as attitudes of powerful social groups, hidden behind discursive strategies and promoted as good intentions. The reproduction of their ideology affects the reproduction of social power relations. (Pennycook, 2001: 89-94).

CDA is often criticized for suggesting that there are hidden ideologies and demonstration of power behind discourse. Critics ask if the language could ever be taken as a neutral object in CDA. (Blommaert, 2005: 33-38)

Regardless of criticism, CDA has turned into a famous method in the study of political discourse, whose aim is to provide a systematic analysis and an appropriate theoretical background to the discursive practices including political speeches, hidden ideologies and demonstration of power.

3.3.2. Discourse and Ideology

Ideology is a set of ideas that lie behind one's goals, intentions, expectations, and actions. It is a concept that dominant social groups impose to other members of society. Ideologies consist of abstract concepts that are applicable to the public and are a central part of any political system. Teun Van Dijk (1995b: 6) gives a very detailed explanation of the term ideology as follows: ″Ideologies are basic frameworks of social cognition, shared by members of social groups, constituted by relevant selections of sociocultural values, and organized by an ideological schema that represents the self-definition of a group. Besides their social function of sustaining the interests of groups, ideologies have the cognitive function of organizing the social representations (attitudes, knowledge) of the group, and thus indirectly monitor the group-related social practices, and hence also the text and talk of its members.″

Namely, Van Dijk (2002) keeps asking what is so special about the expression of ideology by politicians: ″Indeed, is the expression of ideology in various forms of political discourse very different from the expression of ideology in educational, academic, corporate or legal discourse, for instance?″

According to his suggestions given after a study on parliamentary debates in Britain, political discourse is full of ideological expressions at all levels. In these debates there are different ideologies applied at the same time and made important in different contexts. In this case, the most imposing division is the one between professional ideologies, which imply ″controlling attitudes, practices and discourses of MPs and what these should and should not do″, and political ideologies, which ″inspire the politics and policies of the parties involved″, such as the Conservative and Labour in Van Dijk's example. Thus, the Conservatives will advocate a less generous state, will want to reduce benefits, and so on, whereas the Labour may be less restrictive in this case (″depending on whether they are in the opposition or form the government″).

These conservative and liberal ideologies often include epideictic juxtapositions of Us and Them (political polarisation) - ideologies implying nationalism, race and ethnicity.

According to him, ″all these ideologies do not express themselves neatly and explicitly. Sometimes they merely control an intonation, a lexical item or an argumentative fallacy. They combine with other ideologies, and sometimes this leads to apparent contradictions in the text, for instance, in disclaimers that profess empathy with the plight of the others when in the rest of the speech no such empathy is visible.″ (Van Dijk, 2002:32)

3.4. Ideographs, Conceptual Metaphors and Ideology

3.4.1. Introductive remarks on the Ideographs

Investigation into the concept of persuasion in political discourse needs to include the role of ideographs as components of ideology, and their relationship with the conceptual metaphors, which greatly contributes to the creation of political myth.

McGee (1980: 2-6) claims that ideographs are a link between rhetoric and ideology. According to him, the human being is conditioned", not directly to belief and behaviour, but to a vocabulary of concepts that function as guides, warrants, reasons, or excuses for behaviour and belief. When a claim is reinforced by the terms as law", liberty", justice" or tyranny", humans will react in a predictable way. In other words, human beings in collective behave differently than they would behave in isolation.

3.4.2. The Link Between Ideographs and Conceptual Metaphors

In addition, the ideographs function as agents of political consciousness which is controlled by an ideology (Navera, 2011: 317), because they have the capacity both to control power and to influence (if not determine) the shape and texture of each individual’s reality." (McGee, 1980: 5).

This paper argues that there is an unbreakable bond between the conceptual metaphors and ideographs in political discourse: the conceptual metaphors consume the ideographs and preserve their basic function (persuasion and promotion of ideology).

As it has already been mentioned, the ideographs may be positive", such as <liberty>, <justice> or negative", such as <tyranny>, <slavery>, <pollution>.

The conceptual metaphors in political speech serve to create reality, which includes shaping the listener’s perception by accusing someone of something, labelling bad political options or discussing the causes of political and other crises and, at the same time, offering solutions for important issues and facilitating the acceptance of a particular ideology.

According to McGee (1980), ideographs are the terms representing collective commitment to a particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal", making people react predictably and autonomically". For example, while <freedom> and <national heritage> have a positive meaning in the EU or USA, <aggression> and <occupation> guide behaviour and belief negatively by branding unacceptable behaviour. All citizens of democratic countries would express their respect to democratic values like freedom, prosperity, education, national history, multiculturalism, while they would have a negative attitude towards social evils such as military aggression, occupation, war, tyranny, fundamentalism, terrorism etc.

This shows that the ideographs bear a particular moral value, whether positive or negative, in human society, bringing them in connection with the conceptual metaphors as a means of shaping morality. For example, the conceptual metaphor Nation as Family contains the two ideographs bearing a very positive meaning in many cultures (<nation>, <family>). The ideographs <strict father> and <nurturant parent> coined by Lakoff, summarise the ideas and moral principles behind two different ideologies: conservatism and liberalism.

McGee suggested two approaches to the ideographical analysis of political language: the diachronic approach, which investigates how their usage changes and expands throughout the history; and the synchronic approach, investigating the accommodation of their meaning to particular situations. We will deal with both approaches, trying to identify the ideographs in the speech given and explain their role in political persuasion.⁶

4. Analysis

4.1. Introductive Remarks on the Analysis

Given that this paper is particularly concerned with the cognitive stage of political speech (the use of ideographs and conceptual metaphors), Boudicca’s speech was analysed and the results were tabulated in accordance with the previously explained methodological principles.

4.1.1. Circle 1: Boudicca: Nationalism, Faith and"Jus Ad Bellum″ (Speech Topics)

CIRCLE 1 is used for identification of the speech topics emerging from the analysis and giving examples for each of them. In Boudicca’s case, there are 3 broader topics:

FREEDOM vs. SLAVERY

You have learned by actual experience how different freedom is from slavery.

...how great a mistake you made in preferring an imported despotism to your ancestral mode of life, and you have come to realize how much better is poverty with no master than wealth with slavery. (BS, l 4-6, App. p.1)

…let us, I say, do our duty while we still remember what freedom is, that we may leave to our children not only its appellation but also its reality. For, if we utterly forget the happy state in which we were born and bred, what, pray, will they do, reared in bondage? (BS, l 35-38, App. p.2)

THE ROMAN RULE

And why should the Romans be expected to display moderation as time goes on, when they have behaved toward us in this fashion at the very outset, when all men show consideration even for the beasts they have newly captured? (BS, l 18-21, App. p.1)

…we have, notwithstanding all this, been despised and trampled underfoot by men who nothing else than how to secure gain. (BS, l 31-33, App. p.2)

BRITON BRAVERY vs. ROMAN COWARDICE

Have no fear whatever of the Romans; for they are superior to us neither in numbers nor in bravery.

Indeed, we enjoy such a surplus of bravery, that we regard our tents as safer than their walls and our shields as affording greater protection than their whole suits of mail. (BS, l 43-50, App. p.2)

But these are not the only respects in which they are vastly inferior to us: there is also the fact that they cannot bear up under hunger, thirst, cold, or heat, as we can. (BS, l 52-60, App. p.2)

4.1.2. Circle 2: Contextual Settings and Ideology

CIRCLE 2 is reserved for historical and political contexts of the given speeches, including the speakers’ ideological attitudes.

Boudicca was probably born around 30 AD to a noble family in the area of today's East Anglia. She was the wife of Prastagus, king of the Iceni tribe, whose kingdom was under the Roman occupation at the time. According to Prastagus's will (he died in 60 AD), one half of his Kingdom was left to the Roman Emperor Nero and the other half to his daughters. He probably did so thinking that in this way his family will be protected and their traditional rule over the Iceni people will survive. But, according to the Roman historian Tacitus: ″Kingdom and households alike were plundered like prizes of war… As a beginning, his widow Boudicca was flogged and his daughters raped. The Iceanian chiefs were deprived of their hereditary estates as if the Romans had been given the whole country. The King's own relatives were treated like slaves. And the humiliated Iceni feared still worse… So they rebelled.″ (Lawson, 2013: 31)

Boudicca's speeches are typical rousing speeches delivered to her army right before their great rebellion against the Roman Empire and contain her analysis of the national situation, an attempt to organise an armed resistance against the Roman occupiers and the expression of faith in favour of the national deity who is ″on the side of the righteous vengeance″. (BS, App., l., p.)

As far as her ideological attitudes are concerned, Boudicca supports the traditional values and conservative attitudes about the family life and state model, which Lakoff (1996) described as Strict Father Morality. She promotes nationalism and political polarisation, which is evident in her excessive use of US and THEM as in the following examples:

Among the rest of mankind death frees even those who are in slavery to others; only in the case of the Romans do the very dead remain alive for their profit. Why is it that, though none of us has any money (how, indeed, could we, or where would we get it?), we are stripped and despoiled like a murderer's victims? And why should the Romans be expected to display moderation as time goes on, when they have behaved toward us in this fashion at the very outset, when all men show consideration even for the beasts they have newly captured? (BS, l 15-21, App. p.1)

But, to speak the plain truth, it is we who have made ourselves responsible for all these evils, in that we allowed them to set foot on the island in the first place instead of expelling them at once as we did their famous Julius Caesar, — yes, and in that we did not deal with them while they were still far away as we dealt with Augustus and with Gaius Caligula and make even the attempt to sail hither a formidable thing. (BS, l 22-26, App. p.1)

According to Van Dijk (1995b: 151-157), the political polarisation between US and THEM is actually characterized by a few elements: self-glorification and negative Other-description consisting of negative lexicalisation, generalisation, hyperbole, compassion move, apparent altruism move, apparent honesty move, negative comparison, concretisation, alliteration, warning, norms and value violation, presupposition.

In Boudicca's case the following elements have been found:

1. SELF GLORIFICATION: all the things WE do are of a positive value.

Example: Indeed, we enjoy such a surplus of bravery, that we regard our tents as safer than their walls and our shields as affording greater protection than their whole suits of mail. As a consequence, we when victorious capture them, and when overpowered elude them; and if we ever choose to retreat anywhere, we conceal ourselves in swamps and mountains so inaccessible that we can be neither discovered or taken. (BS, l 48-52, App. p.2)

2. SELF-VICTIMISATION, which may be treated as an extension of the elements named by Van Dijk; not in the sense of victim-playing, but rather as a try to attract attention and emphasize the fact that WE are the victims, so OUR struggle is justified:

Why is it that, though none of us has any money (how, indeed, could we, or where would we get it?), we are stripped and despoiled like a murderer's victims? (BS, l 16-18, App., p. 1)

3. VILIFICATION OF OTHERS IN TERMS OF:

a)  Negative lexicalisation (using strongly negative lexemes in order to describe the OTHERS and their actions): imported despotism (BS, l 4, App., p. 1), a formidable thing (BS, l 26, p. 1), enemies (BS, l 46, p.2), Our opponents (BS, l 52-53, App., p.2), men insolent, unjust, insatiable, impious (BS, l 73-74, App., p.3)

b)  Hyperbole (exaggeration): How much better to have been slain and to have perished than to go about with a tax on our heads! (BS, l 12-13, App., p.1)

c)   Apparent altruism move or emphasizing sympathy for the best interest of other people:… let us, I say, do our duty while we still remember what freedom is, that we may leave to our children not only its appellation but also its reality. (BS, l 35-37, App., p.2)

d)  Apparent honesty move (using words like indeed, proof, evidence):

Indeed, we enjoy such a surplus of bravery… (BS, l 48, App., p.2)

And here is the proof: they have protected themselves with helmets and breastplates and greaves (BS, l 44-45, App., p.2)

e)   Negative comparison (pointing to bad qualities of the Other):

Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves. (BS, l 62-63, App., p.3)

f)   Generalization (Romans in general are bad.):

Among the rest of mankind death frees even those who are in slavery to others; only in the case of the Romans do the very dead remain alive for their profit.(BS, l 5-16, App., p.1)

g)  Warning (possible threats and terror, Doomsday scenario):

If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves, and captive.(BS, l 52-53, App., p.2)

h)   Rule violation (the Others violate rules we hold dear):

Among the rest of mankind death frees even those who are in slavery to others; only in the case of the Romans do the very dead remain alive for their profit. (BS, l 87-89, App., p.3)

i)    Presuppositions (bad features that are assumed to be known or applicable to the Others: But these are not the only respects in which they are vastly inferior to us: there is also the fact that they cannot bear up under hunger, thirst, cold, or heat, as we can. They require shade and covering, they require kneaded bread and wine and oil, and if any of these things fails them, they perish… (BS, l 55-58, App., p.2)

″…we ought to term those people men who bathe in warm water, eat artificial dainties, drink unmixed wine, anoint themselves with myrrh, sleep on soft couches with boys for bedfellows.″ (BS, l 74-76, p.3)

However, there is an exception considering her Strict Father Morality", due to the fact that she challenges the traditional masculine hegemony in the social areas like war and leadership:

I thank thee, Andraste, and call upon thee as woman speaking to woman...

..now Nero (who, though in name a man, is in fact a woman, as is proved by his singing, lyre-playing and beautification of his person); nay, those over whom I rule are Britons, men that know not how to till the soil or ply a trade, but are thoroughly versed in the art of war and hold all things in common, even children and wives, so that the latter possess the same valour as the men. As the queen, then, of such men and of such women.

Wherefore may this Mistress Domitia-Nero reign no longer over me or over you men; let the wench sing and lord it over Romans, for they surely deserve to be the slaves of such a woman after having submitted to her so long. But for us, Mistress, be thou alone ever our leader. (BS, 64-80, App., p.3)

But now, it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged , and marked body, the outraged chastity of my daughters.

This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves, and captive. (BS, l 80-89, App., p.3)

4.1.3. Circle 3: Cognitive Stage/Ideographs and Conceptual Metaphors

The ideographs mark the values deeply embedded in a particular culture, and they are ideal rhetorical tools because of their ability to associate a culture’s mythos with its ethos, i.e. they represent myths, customs and way of life in a particular culture. They are culturally-bound. That means that some ideographs may have positive connotations in one culture and totally opposite in another, i.e. <slavery> is socially acceptable in some cultures, but unacceptable in other cultures.

Table 3. Ideographs of CONFLICT, NATION and RELIGION in Boudicca’s speech.

Since our analysis has been limited to the domains of conflict, nation and religion, there is also a need for a more detailed analysis of the ideographs appearing as the features of these domains in the political speeches being analysed in this paper. These ideographs may be seen in the Table 1 below, where we have paid a special attention to the majority of the ideographs connected to conflict, which have been divided into the ideographs indicating causes of the conflict, the ideographs indicating the positive effects of the conflict and those indicating the negative effects of the conflict.

The term <righteous vengeance> makes the framework of Boudicca’s rhetorical choices because all her ideological attitudes aim at justifying the rebellion against the Roman Empire. This term is associated with the collective memory of her people about all the evil things that the Roman Rule had done to them and, at the same time, it invokes their collective commitment to resist the occupiers and preserve their traditional values, peace and freedom. Actually, it is the superior ideograph in Boudicca’s case. The same ideograph may be found in many political speeches justifying armed conflicts against political opponents. Its frequent use in the contexts of different political conflicts in human history has made it an expected" and needed" component of political speeches calling for war. Therefore, a righteous war against what is wrong and socially unacceptable due to the dominant ideology of a society becomes a collective responsibility of the righteous members of the society for the purpose of maintaining peace, stability, prosperity and freedom. (Segarra Navera, 2011: 320)

The recontextualization of the ideograph <righteous vengeance> is found very often in Biblical editions, as well as in political speeches. For example, in the King James Bible, Pslams 58:10, there is a line: The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.⁷

In Barack Obama's Statement on the Killing of Osama Bin Laden (Washington, D.C., May 1, 2011), the <righteous vengeance> is recontextualized as a demise that should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.⁸

George W. Bush recontextualized the< righteous vengeance> through the war on terror as in the following statement: ″And the people of my country will remember those who have plotted against us. We are learning their names. We are coming to know their faces. There is no corner of the Earth distant or dark enough to protect them. However long it takes, their hour of justice will come.″⁹

Recontextualization of the ideographs is actually their representation via the metaphors, which greatly contributes to political mythmaking and thus legitimizes certain ideology and increases public support to political promotion of ideologies. In the case of Boudicca, who ruled the Britons during the troubled times of the Roman Empire, political mythmaking¹⁰ was a way to legitimize her political leadership as a woman in the masculine world of cold steel and massive battles.

For better understanding and a more detailed analysis, we have separated the ideographs connected to the nation, faith and war and tabulated them as the causes and effects of the <righteous vengeance>, as may be seen below:

Table 4. <righteous vengeance> causes and effects.

In Boudicca’s case, all the ideographs marked as CAUSES in the Table 2 above, have negative connotations, while all those marked as EFFECTS bear positive connotations.

Boudicca’s discursive skills make her people believe that their rebellion against slavery and the Roman despotism is justified in both political and religious sense since …heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance. (BS, l 84, App., p.3)

Persuasive discourse has been an important part of political activities since the ancient times. The Metaphor Theory might be seen as a modern lease on Aristotle’s three pillars of rhetoric: LOGOS, ETHOS and PATHOS. LOGOS means a logical appeal or simulation of it; it presents the speaker’s arguments; ETHOS is an appeal to the speaker’s moral authority or credibility, while PATHOS presents the emotional impact that the speaker causes in the audience.¹¹Accordingly, Boudicca’s discourse may be seen as rather logical and emphatic, being a person of undisputed ethos to her people.

It is perfectly suited to the conservative values described by Lakoff in Moral Politics (1996), implying the use of the conceptual metaphor NATION AS FAMILY, where Boudicca openly proclaimed familiarity of the Strict Father Morality: However, even at this late day, though have not done so before, let us, my countrymen and friends and kinsmen, — for I consider you all kinsmen, seeing that you inhabit a single island and are called by one common name. (BS, l 34-35, App., p. 1)

The conceptual metaphor NATION AS FAMILY has been extended into a personification NATION IS A PERSON, when Boudicca says: this region is familiar to us and is our ally (BS, l 60, App., p. 2) This kind of political commitment is characterized by the traditional view on family life, where the father of the family is the only leader and moral authority, obliged to discipline the children and punish them (even physically) if they do something wrong. The world is a dangerous place, and children must learn to fight for the family interests from an early age.

Boudicca proclaims acting in accordance with the moral essence, which is expressed through:

1. Moral order, where a deity/-ies is/are above man and man is above nature and

2. Moral health , where immorality is treated as a social disease.

According to Lakoff (2004), in the conservative world, there is a moral order or hierarchy determined by social power, where there is God above man, man above the nature etc. In Boudicca’s speech, we may find the concept of the personified Heaven: But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance… (BS, l 84, App., p. 3), where HEAVEN IS A PERSON implies that Heaven is a warrior, while righteous vengeance is his fellow-in-arms. The idea of heaven as a place of final judgment is metaphorical because heaven is a metonym for a deity/deities which shared some kind of final judgment in this world. From this we can draw the conceptual metaphor HEAVEN IS A PERSON, where the abstract term heaven is understood through another experiential domain or via personification.

Considering the moral health concept, we have found another conceptual metaphor: IMMORALITY IS POLLUTION, which may be extended into ROMANS ARE POLLUTERS:

...but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged, and marked body, the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very person, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. (BS, l 81-84, App., p.3)

Boudicca's speeches reflect the old concept of JUS AD BELLUM (Lat. right to war), which sets principles defining a just war and explaining criteria to be considered before declaring a war.

The Just War Theory is one of the most influential perspectives on the ethics of war and peace, which has been developing since Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine. Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition were incorporated into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, like The United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions.

The concept of jus ad bellum has developed from political communities, or states, which fulfil each and every one of the following six criteria¹²:

1.   Just cause. A state may launch a war only for the right reason, such as: self-defence from external attack; the defence of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected.

2.   Right intention. The war must be fought only for the sake of its just cause, meaning that the actual motivation behind the war must also be morally appropriate. The war must not lay upon motives like power, land grab, revenge or ethnic hatred.

3.   Proper authority and public declaration. The war may be approved only by the appropriate authorities (constitution), according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s).

4.   Last Resort. A state may go to war only if it has exhausted all peaceful alternatives to resolve the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic activities.

5.   Probability of Success. A state may not go to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. The aim here is to prevent mass violence. 

6.   Proportionality. Before initiating a war, the state must weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties.

Lakoff’s concept of the FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR is a peculiar extension of the ″JUS AD BELLUM″ concept. According to Lakoff (1999), it implies the following scenario: in politics there are heroes and villains. The heroes are moral verticals of exceptional courage who fight against the evils of the world that are imposed by the villains, immoral people, destroying the world’s moral order. So Boudicca says: Indeed, we enjoy such a surplus of bravery, that we regard our tents as safer than their walls and our shields as affording greater protection than their whole suits of mail. (BS, l 48-50, App., p. 2)

The villains are cowards who spread disease and immorality and therefore they deserve the worst possible punishment: Our opponents, however, can neither pursue anybody, by reason of their heavy armour... They require shade and covering, they require kneaded bread and wine and oil, and if any of these things fails them, they perish; for us, on the other hand, any grass or root serves as bread, the juice of any plant as oil, any water as wine, any tree as a house. (BS, l 52-60, App., p. 2)

Due to the impossibility of civilized communication, the heroes are forced to start a war for liberation. Every war against the villains is legitimate and morally correct, and the hero's moral duty is to release the oppressed and protect the weak.

FOREIGN AUTHORITY IS BONDAGE/ SLAVERY, so the ideograph <freedom> is always in the forefront of the speeches advocating a morally justified war against the occupants: I say, do our duty while we still remember what freedom is, that we may leave to our children not only its appellation but also its reality. For, if we utterly forget the happy state in which we were born and bred, what, pray, will they do, reared in bondage? (BS, l 35-38, App., p. 2)

Finally, the war will show that PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS, so Boudicca says: Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves. (BS, l 62-63, App., p. 3), where the hares and foxes indicate the villain's cowardice, while the dogs and wolves indicate the hero's braveness and morality.

4.1.4. Circle 4: The Speech Effects

The metaphor analysis in Boudicca's case has shown that she encourages political and ideological polarization into US and THEM, described by Van Dijk as positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. She is a conservative leader, prone to bias, and she knows how to agitate broad masses against the evils brought by the others-THEM: …we ought to term those people men who bathe in warm water, eat artificial dainties, drink unmixed wine, anoint themselves with myrrh, sleep on soft couches with boys for bedfellows, — boys past their prime at that, — and are slaves to a lyre-player and a poor one too.

Her words are full of malice and hostility:

Let us, therefore, go against them trusting boldly to good fortune. Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves (BS, l 62-63, App., p. 3).

much less over the Romans themselves as did Messalina once and afterwards Agrippina and now Nero (who, though in name a man, is in fact a woman, as is proved by his singing, lyre-playing and beautification of his person) (BS, l 66-69, App., p. 3)

Roman lust has gone so far that not our very person, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. (BS, l 83-84, App., p. 3)

At the same time, she is rather blunt and persuasive; she is able to keep the audience's attention as much as needed and she knows how to flatter broad masses in order to achieve her aim: nay, those over whom I rule are Britons, men that know not how to till the soil or ply a trade, but are thoroughly versed in the art of war and hold all things in common, even children and wives, so that the latter possess the same valour as the men (BS, l 69-72, App., p. 3)

By combining ideographs into the new conceptual metaphors, Boudicca evokes the national pride, compassion and confidence of her people, which enables her to achieve the final goal: the implacable resistance against the occupiers.

4.2. Final Remarks on the Analysis

The analysis points to the fundamental aspects of political speech or the way of conveying the political message from the speaker to the audience.

The analytical circles actually show how the speakers’ intentions are reflected in political messages, which leads us to the suggestion that such an analysis might result in important findings.

The findings are explained in the next paragraph and they could become a useful part of speech analysis in general.

However, a larger corpus would provide a more explicit insight into the mechanisms of speech development and the desired effects of the speech on the target audience.

5. Results and Discussion

Our analysis has provided a large set of significant conceptual features contained in Boudicca’s speech, which were tabulated for the purpose of easier reference as follows:

The foregoing analysis of the Boudicca’s speech has shown that she conceptualizes politics as a CONFLICT between US and THEM, where the BRITONS are seen as HEROIC NATION, while the Others are VILLAINS (polluters, opponents, enemies).

The NATION is conceptualized as FAMILY, while all the orator presents herself as a heroic matron. In Boudicca’s case, we have also found a religious reference. Namely, Boudicca invokes Andraste, which is a deity belonging to the then polytheistic Celtic religion.

 

 

Table 5. Boudicca's metaphors.

In addition, she proclaims the conservative attitudes and traditional values defined by the Lakoff's STRICT FATHER MORALITY, but there are also features of the NURTURANT PARENT MORALITY.

The results have suggested that the context influences people's conceptualisation of the world. Boudicca’s rhetorical choices were affected by the male-dominated world she lived in. Her words act as cold weapons; they serve the purpose of awakening the national pride and standing up against the occupators.

Boudicca’s words are not mere insults hurled at the enemies, but deadly weapons that will wipe them from the face of the earth.

6. Conclusive Remarks

This paper was designed to explain the central importance of the conceptual metaphors used in Queen Boudicca’s speech, trying to sort them out, classify them and grasp the political message behind these metaphors, including an explanation about their possible impact on cognition considering ideographs as building blocks of ideologies.

Returning to the hypotheses and research questions posed at the beginning of this paper, it is now possible to state that Queen Boudicca used ideographs and conceptual metaphors as persuasive tools, or means of promoting her ideology and achieving political power. The analysis has also shown that the use of ideographs and conceptual metaphors depends on the extralinguistic context. Boudicca used the ideographs and conceptual metaphors referring to the nation, history, past and conflict, while there is also a religious reference. The most prominent concepts in her speech are NATION AS FAMILY and JUS AD BELLUM/FAIRY TALE OF THE JUST WAR, which include some innovative metaphors like ROMANS ARE POLLUTERS (Boudicca).

The conceptual metaphors she used were mostly of the following source domains: conflict, family, personification, which justifies Boudicca’s representation as a militant female leader.

Considering the use of ideographs, we suggest that they comprise the values that were generally accepted in Boudicca's community, which makes them crucial to the achievement of political credibility.

Invoking values such as <a happy state>, <our way of life>, <tradition>, <freedom> etc., Boudicca inevitably excites the national pride and affects the public judgement.

At the same time, warning the public about the things like <enemies> and <polluters>, she provides the necessary motivations or justifications for the action performed in the name of the public.¹³

Boudicca promoted nationalism, traditional values/ conservatism and religiousness, with a subtle touch of liberalism, shown from the mere fact that she was a female leader in the masculine political world. Thus, her linguistic toughness and militancy, as well as lack of subtle and fine expressions that one would expect from a woman, are not at all surprising, but point to her need of fitting into a world that was, and still is, in the male domain. The way in which Boudicca promoted manlike firmness in a woman’s body, in her case proved to be a successful recipe of political persuasion.

The empirical findings from this paper provide a new understanding of the conceptual metaphor as one of the most important rhetorical figures in political discourse, serving for successful political persuasion and promotion of ideology. Although it is based on a small sample of speeches, the results of the research suggest that the extralinguistic context affects the choice of the conceptual metaphors.

However, a greater sample of speeches might help us to establish a greater degree of accuracy on this matter.

Another possible area of future research would be to investigate the use of the conceptual metaphors in a larger corpus of speeches given by men and women politicians from different countries, for the purpose of finding out if there were female-like and male-like conceptual metaphors in political discourse in general.

List of Abbreviations

CMT-Conceptual Metaphor Theory

CDA-Critical Discourse Analysis

CMA-Critical Metaphor Analysis

BS-Boudicca’s Speech

Appendix

Boudicca's speech to her army (BS)

1"You have learned by actual experience how different freedom is from slavery. Hence, 2 although some among you may previously, through ignorance of which was better, have 3 been deceived by the alluring promises of the Romans, yet now that you have tried both, you 4 have learned how great a mistake you made in preferring an imported despotism to your 5 ancestral mode of life, and you have come to realize how much better is poverty with no 6 master than wealth with slavery. For what treatment is there of the most shameful or 7 grievous sort that we have not suffered ever since these men made their appearance in 8 Britain? Have we not been robbed entirely of most of our possessions, and those the greatest, 9 while for those that remain we pay taxes? Besides pasturing and tilling for them all our other 10 possessions, do we not pay a yearly tribute for our very bodies? How much better it would 11 be to have been sold to masters once for all than, possessing empty titles of freedom, to 12 have to ransom ourselves every year! How much better to have been slain and to have 13 perished than to go about with a tax on our heads! Yet why do I mention death? For even 14 dying is not free of cost with them; nay, you know what fees we deposit even for our dead. 15 Among the rest of mankind death frees even those who are in slavery to others; only in the 16 case of the Romans do the very dead remain alive for their profit. Why is it that, though 17 none of us has any money (how, indeed, could we, or where would we get it?), we are 18 stripped and despoiled like a murderer's victims? And why should the Romans be expected 19 to display moderation as time goes on, when they have behaved toward us in this fashion at 20 the very outset, when all men show consideration even for the beasts they have newly 21 captured?

22 "But, to speak the plain truth, it is we who have made ourselves responsible for all these 23 evils, in that we allowed them to set foot on the island in the first place instead of expelling 24 them at once as we did their famous Julius Caesar, — yes, and in that we did not deal with 25 them while they were still far away as we dealt with Augustus and with Gaius Caligula and 26 make even the attempt to sail hither a formidable thing. As a consequence, although we 27 inhabit so large an island, or rather a continent, one might say, that is encircled by the sea, 28 and although we possess a veritable world of our own and are so separated by the ocean 29 from all the rest of mankind that we have been believed to dwell on a different earth and 30 under a different sky, and that some of the outside world, aye, even their wisest men, have 31 not hitherto known for a certainty even by what name we are called, we have, 32 notwithstanding all this, been despised and trampled underfoot by men who nothing else 33 than how to secure gain. However, even at this late day, though we have not done so 34 before, let us, my countrymen and friends and kinsmen, — for I consider you all kinsmen, 35 seeing that you inhabit a single island and are called by one common name, — let us, I say, 36 do our duty while we still remember what freedom is, that we may leave to our children not 37 only its appellation but also its reality. For, if we utterly forget the happy state in which we 38 were born and bred, what, pray, will they do, reared in bondage?

39 "All this I say, not with the purpose of inspiring you with a hatred of present conditions, — 40 that hatred you already have, — nor with fear for the future, — that fear you already have, 41 — but of commending you because you now of our own accord choose the requisite course 42 of action, and of thanking you for so readily co-operating with me and with each other. 43 Have no fear whatever of the Romans; for they are superior to us neither in numbers nor in 44 bravery. And here is the proof: they have protected themselves with helmets and 45 breastplates and greaves and yet further provided themselves with palisades and walls and 46 trenches to make sure of suffering no harm by an incursion of their enemies. For they are 47 influenced by their fears when they adopt this kind of fighting in preference to the plan we 48 follow of rough and ready action. Indeed, we enjoy such a surplus of bravery, that we 49 regard our tents as safer than their walls and our shields as affording greater protection than 50 their whole suits of mail. As a consequence, we when victorious capture them, and when 51 overpowered elude them; and if we ever choose to retreat anywhere, we conceal ourselves 52 in swamps and mountains so inaccessible that we can be neither discovered or taken. Our 53 opponents, however, can neither pursue anybody, by reason of their heavy armour, nor yet 54 flee; and if they ever do slip away from us, they take refuge in certain appointed spots, 55 where they shut themselves up as in a trap. But these are not the only respects in which they 56 are vastly inferior to us: there is also the fact that they cannot bear up under hunger, thirst, 57 cold, or heat, as we can. They require shade and covering, they require kneaded bread and 58 wine and oil, and if any of these things fails them, they perish; for us, on the other hand, 59 any grass or root serves as bread, the juice of any plant as oil, any water as wine, any tree as 60 a house. Furthermore, this region is familiar to us and is our ally, but to them it is unknown 61 and hostile. As for the rivers, we swim them naked, whereas they do not across them easily 62 even with boats. Let us, therefore, go against them trusting boldly to good fortune. Let us 63 show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves."

64 "I thank thee, Andraste, and call upon thee as woman speaking to woman; for I rule over 65 no burden-bearing Egyptians as did Nitocris, nor over trafficking Assyrians as did 66 Semiramis (for we have by now gained thus much learning from the Romans!), much less 67 over the Romans themselves as did Messalina once and afterwards Agrippina and now 68 Nero (who, though in name a man, is in fact a woman, as is proved by his singing, lyre-69 playing and beautification of his person); nay, those over whom I rule are Britons, men that 70 know not how to till the soil or ply a trade, but are thoroughly versed in the art of war and 71 hold all things in common, even children and wives, so that the latter possess the same 72 valour as the men. As the queen, then, of such men and of such women, I supplicate and 73 pray thee for victory, preservation of life, and liberty against men insolent, unjust, 74 insatiable, impious, — if, indeed, we ought to term those people men who bathe in warm 75 water, eat artificial dainties, drink unmixed wine, anoint themselves with myrrh, sleep on 76 soft couches with boys for bedfellows, — boys past their prime at that, — and are slaves to 77 a lyre-player and a poor one too. Wherefore may this Mistress Domitia-Nero reign no 78 longer over me or over you men; let the wench sing and lord it over Romans, for they 79 surely deserve to be the slaves of such a woman after having submitted to her so long. But 80 for us, Mistress, be thou alone ever our leader."

81"But now, it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that 82 I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged , and marked body, the outraged chastity of my 83 daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very person, nor even age or virginity, 84 are left unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which 85 dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking 86 anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, 87 much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the 88 causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a 89 woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves, and captive."

References

1. Adler, E. (2008), Boudica's Speeches in Tacitus and Dio, Classical World ,Volume 101, Number 2, Winter 2008 , pp. 173-195.
2. Aponte Moreno, M. (2009). Metaphors in Hugo Chávez's Political Discourse: Conceptualizing Nation, Revolution, and Opposition, VDM Verlag. ISBN 3-639-11525-2 / ISBN 978-3-639-11525-3.
3. Blommaert, J. (2005), Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Borčić, N. (2010.), Konceptualne metafore u političkim intervjuima, Medijske studije, 1, (1-2),136-156, hrcak.srce.hr/file/113919‎.
5. Charteris-Black,J. (2004), Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Charteris-Black J. (2011), Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor, Palgrave MacMillan.
7. Deignan, A. (2005), Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, John Benjamins, p.13.
8. Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press, p.194Fernandez, J. W., Persuasions and Performances: The Play of Tropes in Culture, Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1986.
9. Harris, B. (2008) Intolerance: divided societies on trial p.182. Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing.( http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/conceptmetaphorterm.htm).
10. Kövecses,Z. (2002), Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford Univ. Press.
11. Krug, M.(2010), War of words? A contrastive linguistic study of the political speeches of Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., George W. Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, employing the ‘Wave Method of political speech analysis’,Universidad Complutense de Madrid Master Thesis. (http://eprints.ucm.es/12892/1/Krug_Matthias.pdf).
12. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors we live by, Chichago University Press.
13. Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989), More Than Cool Reason, Univ. of Chicago Press.
14. Lakoff, G. (1991), Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf (Part 1 of 2),Viet Nam Generation: A Journal of Recent History and Contemporary Issues Volume 3, Number 3.
15. Lakoff, G. (2002), Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives think, 2nd edition, University of Chichago Press.
16. Lakoff, G. (2008), The Political Mind, Penguin Group, USA.
17. Lanham, R. (1991), A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 131. ISBN 978-0-520-27368-9Lesz, B. (2011): To Shape The World For The Better: An Analysis Of Metaphors In The Speeches Of Barack Obama, Master Thesis, INSTITUTT FOR SPRÅKVITENSKAP: FAKULTET FOR HUMANIORA, SAMFUNNSVITENSKAP OG LÆRERUTDANNING UNIVERSITETET I TROMSØ, VÅREN.
18. McGee, M. C. (1980), The Ideograph:a Link between Rhetoric and Ideology, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1980)1-16http://comphacker.org/comp/engl335fosen/files/2012/08/9993504.pdf.
19. Pennycook, A. (2001), Critical Applied Linguistics, Mahwah (NJ) & London: LEA.
20. Rapp, C. (2010), Aristotle's Rhetoric, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/>.
21. Segarra Navera G. (2011), War on terror" is a curative; recontextualization and political myth-making in Gloria Macapagal-Aroyo’s 2002-2004 State of the Nation Adress, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8:4, 313-343 (http.//dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2011.615610).
22. Sivrić, M. (2014). Primjeri kritičke analize medijskoga diskurza, Filozofski fakultet Mostar, Mostar.
23. Stanojević, M.-M. (2009.), Konceptualna metafora u kognitivnoj lingvistici: pregled pojmova.Suvremena lingvistika 68: 339-369.
24. Van Dijk, T. (1995a), What is political discourse analysis?.  Key-note address Congress Political Linguistics. Antwerp, 7-9 December. In Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics.(pp. 11-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997.
25. Van Dijk, T. A. (1995b), Discourse Semantics and Ideology, Discourse and Society, Sage Publications, 6:248 (http://das.sagepub.com).
26. Van Dijk, T. A. (2002), Political Discourse and Ideology,In Clara Ubaldina Lorda &  Montserrat Ribas (Eds.), Anàlisi del discurs politic, pp. 15-34. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. IULA.
27. Verschueren, J. (2012). Ideology in Language Use, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Wodak, R. (2001), What CDA is about - A summary of its history, important concepts and its development." Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Wodak, Ruth & Meyer M. London: SAGE, pp. 1-13.
29. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches.
30. Address to the United Nations General Assembly by President George W. Bush, http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207556.htm.
31. http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/s10-01-waves-and-electromagnetic-radi.html.
32. http://oxforddictionaries.com/.
33. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911addresstothenation.htm).
34. http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/reagan/nationalsecurity.htmlMetaphor - The Twentieth Century - Press, University, Translated, and York - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/10193/Metaphor-Twentieth-Century.html#ixzz305yNACtt.
35. www.plato.stanford.edu/entities/aristotle_rhetoric/.