The Senate Votes on Tropes and the Troops
The US Senate will make linguistics history today. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell actually brought to the floor a bill based on a linguistic trope called "metonymy." The bill also makes history by trying to censure an ad. But the most "damning" part of the censure is not what is in the ad, but what is in the heads of people who use the metonymy trope.
Here's an example of how metonymy works. It is a mental operation. If you say, "The US invasion toppled Saddam Hussein," you mean it toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The Leader stands for the Institution he or she leads. In a frame containing both a leader of a government and the government, the Leader can stand for the Government.
This metonymy works for generals as well. A general in uniform reporting to Congress can be seen simply as himself. But if you use the Leader-for-Institution metonymy, you can see the general as standing for the entire armed forces. Thus, an attack on the general can be seen, if you use the metonymy, as an attack on the entire military. The use of the metonymy isn't automatic in this case. People can use it or not. If not, an attack on the general is just an attack on the general.
The Republicans' own use of this metonymy is coming up in the Senate today. It is in a Republican bill to censure the use of the metonymy -- by the Republicans themselves!
If this seems strange, it is. But here is the situation.
MoveOn.org published their "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad last week, pointing out deceptions by the general that would result in keeping the troops in Iraq, keeping them in danger of maiming or death. The general's deception, MoveOn indirectly pointed out, would result in harm to the troops, and so Petraeus' deception amounted to a betrayal of his own men, as well as a betrayal of the trust of the American people. Paul Begala, a moderate Democrat recently expressed his agreement with MoveOn. MoveOn did not say anything against the troops. On the contrary, MoveOn expressed concern for the safety of the troops.
Ari Fleisher's Freedom's Watch -- the White House's swift-boating group -- used the metonymy in an attack on MoveOn. Bradley A. Blakeman, president of Freedom's Watch, said "To question the character and patriotism of brave men and women who combat terrorism everyday is too much, it's in poor taste and it will not go unchallenged." MoveOn's questioning of the character and patriotism of a general caught in a deception adversely affecting the lives of his own troops was, via the Freedom's Watch metonymy, turned in to an attack on the troops. Who used the metonymy? Not MoveOn, but the Republicans attacking MoveOn.
Now the scene moves to the US Senate. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has introduced a bill saying the following:
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.
It goes on to condemn MoveOn as the source of the "attacks." Now how did "and all the members of the United States Armed Forces" get in there? By metonymy! A metonymy used not by MoveOn, but by Senator Cornyn himself! The bill is actually condemning the people who wrote and introduced it, Cornyn and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
This is indeed a red-letter day for the Senate. All linguists, English teachers, communications experts, and students of language nationwide should hereafter celebrate September 20 as Metonymy Day. Indeed, I recommend that some member of the Senate introduce that declaration into an amendment to some bill or other.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I love how all of the people who instantly buy the right's knee-jerk accusations about this ad, and all of the idiotic slieght-of-hand involved in that, then say "See, MoveOn was just being stupid!" for putting out an ad that could be attacked and twisted like this.
You keep hearing this argument, essentially saying that anything that can be used in a misinformation campaign by the right wingers is itself at fault, becuase it gave them the opportunity to get outraged.
Wake up, everyone. To the far right religious and militaristic extremists that took over our govenment, your very existence is an excuse for outrage.
Going around watching every word and then apologizing for anything that they claim as "offensive"? Sorry, bad strategy, and yes, it's been tried.
Assuming these people are actually reasonable or "fair and balanced" is a big, big mistake. Tiptoeing around trying not to offend them is a tried, and utterly failed, strategy, and in some ways it's exactly why we're in the mess we're in now in this country.
Right, Timezoned!!! When Democrats make right-wing talking points their number one concern, they let right-wingers set their agenda. A great example is the way "impeachment" and "defunding the war" are "off the table." Democrats have granted right wing talking points a veto power greater than even the Presidents.
An additional stupidity is that the last election proved right wing talking points could be beaten at the polls. Even by Democrats.
I heard one of the "pundits" ask for an investigation into the pricing of ads in the NYT because Moveon got the ad for only $65K instead of the $181K that the attack Moveon ad cost.
The guy representing intelligent humans tried in vain to explain the difference to him - the same seat on a plane go for different prices depending on when and where you make your reservations and that car prices are negotiated differently with each buyer - then he asked if his org paid the $181K and the guy representing the morons said he had paid the full price, and the good guy starting laughing and pretty much called him a fool.
That was truly Must See TV!
Would this bill condemn the Swift Boat ads?
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not fabricating a metonymy where none existed.
The metonymic use of General Petraeus to stand for the military is not a response to the Moveon.org ad. It was established by Bush and team at the outset. The entire PR build-up to the "Petraeus Report" was meant to create a military expert stand-in for the unpopular president to hide behind.
For the White House, Petraeus was never just Petraeus. He was the army.
Moveon.org should have consulted some English teachers before they approved the ad with the demeaning name pun. Oh, so clever. It was schoolyard name calling. moveon.org or juve-on.org?
It's outrageous that this trivial ad has become a cause celebre for the right. But they've been hiding behind "support the troops" tropes since the outset. Why should they stop now?
It's about free speech, people! What this ridiculous "sense of the Senate" bill attempts to do is to place the full faith and credit of the United States Senate squarely AGAINST free political speech.
"Sense of the Senate" - how much more oxymoronic can a phrase get than that?
JP
Imagine if a conservative ad had come under similar attack. Some people would be screaming "Political correctness!"
While you are logically correct, the number of people who will go this "meta" in the discussion of MoveOn's childish ad is very, very small. Small enough, in fact, to be of no significance in the real world.
Their error, which I wish more people would recognize, is that by placing that particular ad, they have changed the terms of the discussion - while it rightly would be about the ongoing debacle of the occupation in Iraq, it is now about their ad.
Nothing like parading a large, slow-moving target, is there?
That's ridiculous. It's like saying that wives should stop standing up to their abusive husbands because it results in a beating. The problem is the husband's reaction not the wife who is standing up for her rights.
The advertisement is not the problem. It is the people who are so corrupt that they would use it to avoid the real issues that are the problem. The advertisement merely gives them an excuse to show that corruption.
If the public is too dumb to see through that then they deserve what they get.
Nobody should be saying that it is the exercising of provocative free speech, designed to create this very dialog, that is the problem.
"The advertisement is not the problem. It is the people who are so corrupt that they would use it to avoid the real issues that are the problem. The advertisement merely gives them an excuse to show that corruption."
Ergo, giving them the excuse, and more to the point, the means, to avoid the real issues, is the problem.
Your domestic violence analogy is insulting to victims of that violence, by the way. Really bad comparison on your part.
The add was about the ever diminishing trust in Bush's appointed commanders and the unwillingness of the American people to suspend disbelief when listening to the deserter n chiefs embedded cronies. If you can analyze with such grand linguistic facility the mental machinations of the mind why would you fail or choose not to see the typical spinning of the add from why should we believe the lies just because the most powerful liar is supporting the liar that is telling the lies,into what ever Carl Rove tells the GOP to say and the press to report? Are the GOP attacking the Admiral for his comments on the generals lack of forthrightness? He is after all the officer in charge of the entire theater of operations and should know what the coward n chief is capable of.
Did you actually say anything there? Really. "...(T)he mental machinations of the mind..."? What are those?
The ad headline, which has now completely displaced the real matter of importance, the Bush/Cheney lies about the Iraq occupation, was about MoveOn being too clever by half, and having their wordplay become the topic du jour. Like I said, parading a large, slow-moving target.
So, Professor Lakoff, would you say that the expression, "I support the troops." is the same as saying, "I support Bush." or "I support the war."?
Your example is perhaps an example of a antonomasia type metonymy, where a proper name is used to stand for something else having an attribute associated with that name: Troops:Bush or Troops:War but this is probably debatable. In cognitive linguistics, a metonymy uses a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity and is one of the basic characteristics of cognition. It is common for people to take one well-understood or easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use that aspect to stand either for the thing as a whole or for some other aspect or part of it...in your example the easy to perceive element is Bush as president substituted for the whole: Troops or War. But I suppose one could question the strenght of these associations. For example, is it as strong as an infant's association of the nipple with milk or the word sweat substituted for hard work.
I would argue that the Bush:War example is probably a metaphor since there is similarity and complete contiguity between them in the minds of most English speakers and I think most people would understand the use of a single context--Bush--as a cognitive label for the whole concept of war. The Bush"Troop example may be a metonymy. One thing common to all metonymy however: When people use it, they do not typically wish to transfer qualities from one referent to another as they do with metaphor so Bush:War works but Bush:Troops does not unless one wishes to demean troops.
The professor's comments are fascinating but oversimplifed since he imples a single definition for metonymy when in fact there are many types (antonomasia, synecdoche for example) and how the concept is employed varies between cognitive linguistics and rhetoric. This is hardly a simple topic to discuss!
To say, "I support the troops", is meaningless unless you are actually contributing to their economic and emotional welfare - pay, housing, medical care, long term disability, education - in other words, all those financial and emotional aspects of raising a family.
When you get, and take, 5 tax cuts; when you allow this administration to rob Peter, cut backs on Veteran programs, to pay Paul - in this case Paul Bremer and his partners in Iraq contractor deals; when you allow your own sons and daughters to go back out into an insufferable inferno of a country for the third and fourth extended tour, how, in any way, does that express "support" for the troops?
Now, if you're just talking about putting a bumper sticker on your SUV, well,.....
Sorry, Mr. Lakoff - I have to disagree with you choice of Sept. 20 being designated Metonymy Day.
It was, I believe, Sept. 20, 2001 that the Congress voted to give G.W.Bush the power to make war on his own. Because of this, it should be designated as The Blackest Day in the History of US Freedom.
PA Firefighter
That's what the jingoists would want us to believe at least.
Well, it depends.
I support the troops:
Democrats would interpret that to mean
I support the troops. Just the troops. I do NOT support the Administration who is putting them in harm's way.
Republicans would use the metonymy interpretation. I support the troops AND the Leader and Administration they represent.
That is how they get away with saying Dems don't support the troops when we criticize the Administration. Republicans tie the two together, and can't or won't acknowledge that it is possible to separate those two entities.
The troops and the Administration that commands them.
The fact, however, is that Republicans DON'T support the troops. Ever since Bush submitted his first budget, they have voted to cut aid to military families, to veterans, to not give enlisted troops raises, to not fund safer and more effective equipment, helmets, etc. They haven't "supported the troops" at all.
When Admiral William Fallon, CENTCOM commander, called Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" to his face at their first meeting,
( http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235 )
was he indicating a lack of support for the troops he commanded? MoveOn should have used that quote for their headline!
What Lakoff did is provide a dictionary definition of metonymy.
If you see "Support our troops" as metonymy than everyone who has a support our troops bumper sticker is saying one of "I support Bush", "I support the generals", "I support the war in X" (X being some place among the scores of places the United States is involved in an armed conflict.) Since "Support our troops" is blindingly obvious I personally don't subscribe to that bumper sticker... then again anyone so idiotic that they can summarize their politics on a bumper sticker probably doesn't deserve the right to vote.
So mendez I think the best answer to your over simplification is, no Lakoff did not say "I support the troops" was the same as "I support Bush[/the war]".
Now go learn about what is going on in the world, over-simplification of things got us into the horendous mess that we are all in [I am Canadian] right now.
[[So, Professor Lakoff, would you say that the expression, "I support the troops." is the same as saying, "I support Bush." or "I support the war."?]]
Obviously, it depends on who's saying it. When a Republican says it, it generally means "I support the support Bush no matter what and to Hell with the troops."
Just look what they did to the bill sponsored by Senators Webb and Hagel (one of the few Republicans who really does support the troops) that would have put more reasonable limits on the amount of time a soldier can serve in combat without being rotated home to recuperate and attend to his or her family life.
Bush only cares about the troops when he's using them as props for his photo opportunities. He couldn't care less about the ones who return home irreversibly broken mentally or physically.
.."Bush only cares about the troops when he's using them as props for his photo opportunities. He couldn't care less about the ones who return home irreversibly broken mentally or physically."...That was OBVIOUS when he reiterated that SHOULD the COngressional actually pass a veto proof whatever to limit troops/etc..He would simply call up MORE National Guard and Reserves to fill the " quota's"...WOnder why so few fail to take "advantage" to scream that around and about and etc....Think they need to lay it at HIS(Bushies) feet...If Bush attempts to do such after a bill meant to restrict, well that is circumventing the will of the people and obstructing Congress as well....Presently, the Dems are rather their own worst enemy in all this, and frankly, can rattle on and on about how DUMB Bushie is and etc but hey, hey, hey...WHAT HAS HE NOT GOTTEN , WHAT HAS BEEN STOPPED ? Just how many times have the Dems come off as rolling over while the Gops slither on by as just supporting the troops and being THE true patriots who do NOT hate America or want AMerica to lose and blah, blah, blah...Yeah, really "dumb" but has managed to get his way thru out ALL of this shim-sham-flim-flammery !!!! Disgusting !!
I'm glad I didn't vote for him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
