Metaphor Analysis and Discursive Cycle of Iran's Foreign Policy: “Justice” through the lenses of US-IRAN Presidents

Year 2015, Volume: 36 Issue: 3, 2338 - 2358, 13.05.2015

Bahador Sadeghı Seyed Mohammad Tabatabaı

Abstract

Abstract. The purpose of the present paper is twofold. It mainly aims at determining and defining different foreign policy discourses in Islamic republic of Iran as well as their developmental trend in the past three decades through explanation and elucidation of their particulars, components and nodal points. Actually, it seeks to explore what kind of discourses have been emerged in Iran's foreign policy during the lifetime of Islamic republic of Iran and what discursive developments have been occurred therein. Finding an answer to this fundamental question necessitates responding to some other subsidiary questions which dominate various dimensions, features and elements of each and every discourses showing a particular meaning system. What are their nodal points? What are their most important components and particulars? What do the signifiers of state-nation, Islamic revolution and international system signify? Are those discursive developments in the Iran’s foreign policy regarded as evolutions “from” one discourse to the other or taken as changes “within” discourses? Has foreign policy of Iran undergone a discourse break? In the second part, this paper has also focuses on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches while at the same time being compared with President Obama’s. There is no doubt that the two presidents who have been in the center of attention for many countries in the world for some time now, have taken part in the general assembly of the United Nations in a number of occasions and presented some speeches there and their linguistic features and the phrases particularly the “Justice” metaphors made in their speeches have been scrutinized. The focus in this study has been on finding out about the number of times when the two presidents applied the term "Justice". In order to create an equal and fair basis for the comparison in the study, the authors have made an accurate record and measurement about the frequency of applying the term “Justice” in their speeches in the UN from 2010 to 2012. It seems that President Ahmadinejad has had more focus on the human rights and Justice and tried to present these words more and the reasons he has used this term have been highlighted in this paper. On the other hand, President Obama has shown a little interest in applying this word in his three speeches in the United Nations. This paper tries to analyze the outlook of both presidents linguistically and present some facts about their style of speech and the messages they try to get across.

Keywords

Metaphor, Foreign policy, Typology of Discourse, Discourse, Justice

References

• Bazargan, M. (1983). Revitalization of values. Tehran: Iran Azadi Nehzat. (Eds.)
• Dehghani Firoozabadi, S. J. (2005). Discourse change in foreign policy of Islamic republic of Iran. Tehran: Iran Institute.
• Dehghani Firoozabadi, S. J. (2009). Foreign policy of Islamic republic of Iran. Tehran: Samt.
• Dehghani Firoozabadi, S. J. (2007a). Justice-oriented principalism discourse in foreign policy of Ahmadi Nezhad's government. Political Knowledge, (5).
• Dehghani Firoozabadi, S. J. (2007b). Nature and interest in foreign policy of Islamic republic of Iran.National interests of Islamic republic of Iran. Tehran: Strategic Studies Research.
• El-Sawad, A. (2005). Becoming a ‘‘lifer’’? Unlocking career through metaphor. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 23–41.
• Fairclaugh, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London and New York: Longman.
• Fairclaugh, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics.
• Haghighat, S. S. (1997). Transnational responsibilities in foreign policy of Islamic government. Tehran: Strategic Research Center.
• Howarth, D. (1999). Discourse theories. Method and theory in political science. Tehran: StrategicStudies Research.
• Ketteman, Berhard, Wolfgang Grilz and Isabel
• Landsiedler.Sprache und
• Politik.AnalyseberühmterReden. Retzhof: BildungshausRetzhof, 1995.
• Kovecses, Z. (2005), “Metaphor: A practical introduction.” In I. Nonaka (Ed.), Knowledge management: Critical perspectives on business and management (pp. 101–112). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Khatami, S. M. (2000). Political development, economic development and security. Tehran: Tarh-e-no.
• Larijani, M. J. (1990). Categories in national strategy. Tehran: Translation and Publishing Books Center.
• Laclau, E. (1998). Discourse. Discourse, (0).
• Laclau, E. and Mouffe. C. (1985). Hegemoy and socialist strategy. London: Verso.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in International relations: A critique of research methods. European Journal of International Relations, 5 (2).
• McDonnell, D. (2001). An introduction to critical discourse theories. Tehran: Discourse Culture.
• Millis, S. (1997). Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
• Moshirzadeh, H. (2007). Discursive foundations of Iran's nuclear policy. Security Dialogue, 38(4), 521-543.
• Oberlechner, T., Slunecko, T., &Kronberger, N. (2004). SurŞng the money tides: Understanding the foreign exchange market through metaphors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 133–156
• Ponton, Mark Douglas. Talking Us Round: Linguistic Aspects of Persuasive Political Rhetoric.UK, 2007.
• Soltani, S. A. A. (2005). Power, discourse and language; materials and power processing works in Islamic republic of Iran. Tehran: Ney.
• Tajik, M. R. (1998). Text and discourse analysis. Gofteman Journal, (0).
• Tajik, M. R and Dehghani Firoozabadi, S. J. (2003). Revolution exportation patterns in foreign policy discourses of Iran. Raahbord, (27).
• Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academic of Management Review,16(3), 566–585.