Abstract
Present day anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric both in European countries and in the USA makes reference both to shared tropes and to culture-specific rhetoric devices. The paper analyzes four instances of Polish rabid anti-refugee rhetoric that is eminently country specific: they invoke Holocaust scenario as the means of dealing with the refugee question, should they appear on Polish soil, and specifically suggest exterminating them in former Nazi death camps. The analysis is carried out within the Conceptual Integration Theory, amended by the Author with the notion of parasitic blends: these are said to occur when audiences recruit into the blend some elements of the two input spaces that were not intended to be recruited and come up with an emergent meaning that differ from the intended one. It is claimed that such possibility is actually built into CIT and explains why some of the criticism of CIT claims blends’ non-predictability and generally ex-post character of most analyses found in relevant literature.
References
van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79.Search in Google Scholar
Balcer, Adam, Piotr Buras, Grzegorz Gromadzki & Eugeniusz Smolar. 2017. Polish views of the EU: The illusion of consensus. Warsaw: Batory Fundation.Search in Google Scholar
Besters-Dilger, Juliane, Ana Drobnjakowić & Björn Hansen. 2009. Modals in the Slavonic languages. In Björn Hansen & Ferdinand de Haan (eds.), Modals in the languages of Europe: A reference work, 167–197. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219210.2.167Search in Google Scholar
Bogusławski, Andrzej. 2003. “Może” i “być może” [‘Maybe’ and ‘perhaps’]. In Jadwiga Linde-Usiekniewicz & Romuald Huszcza (eds.), Prace językoznawcze dedykowane Profesor Jadwidze Sambor [Linguistic studies in honor of Professor Jadwiga Sambor], 11–43. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Polonistyki.Search in Google Scholar
Carrera, Sergio, Steven Blockmans, Daniel Gros & Elspeth Guild. 2015. The EU’s response to the refugee crisis: Taking stock and setting policy priorities. (CEPS essay 20). Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana 2003. Reasoning and rhetoric: Conceptual blending in political and religious rhetoric. In Elżbieta Oleksy & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), Research and scholarship in integration processes, 59–88. Lodz, Poland: Lodz University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana. 2006. Constructing meaning. Metaphor and Symbol 21(4). 245–266. (accessed 5 February 2020). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2104_3.Search in Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana & Esther Pascual. 2006. For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.07cou.Search in Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana & Todd Oakley. 2001. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics 11(3/4). 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.014.Search in Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana & Todd Oakley. 2005. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantic. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1510–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010.Search in Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2006. What can blending do for you?. Language and Literature 15(1). 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947006060549.Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, Nina Szymor & Anna Socha. 2015. Less is more: Possibility and necessity as centres of gravity in a usage-based classification of core modals in Polish. Russian Linguistics 39(3) (accessed 10 December 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9153-6.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2003a. Polysemy and conceptual blending. In Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd & David Clarke (eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, 79–94. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895698.79Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2003b. Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en Communication 19. 57–86. https://doi.org/10.14428/rec.v19i19.48413.Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0058.Search in Google Scholar
Glebkin, Vladimir. 2013. A critical view on conceptual blending theory. In Markus Knauff, Michael Pauen, Natalie Sebanz & Ipke Wachsmuth (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 2404–2409. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar
Glebkin, Vladimir. 2015. Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition?. Cognitive Linguistics 26(1). 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0067.Search in Google Scholar
Gębka-Wolak, Małgorzata. 2010. Ile form bezokolicznikowych jest w paradygmacie czasownika? Problem trybu przypuszczającego bezokolicznika [How many infinitive forms are there in the verbal paradigm? The question of conditional infinitive], Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Językoznawcza 17. 25–39. https://doi.org/10.14746/pspsj.2010.17.2.Search in Google Scholar
Hansen, Karolina & Aleksandra Świderska. 2018. Mowa nienawiści jako zachowanie powiązane ze stereotypami i emocjami międzygrupowymi [Hate speech as behavior associated with stereotypes and inter-group emotions]. In Anna Stefaniak & Mikołaj Wiśniewski (eds.), Uprzedzenia w Polsce 2017: Oblicza przemocy międzygrupowej [Prejudice in Poland 2017. Faces of inter-group violence], 61–82. Warsaw: Liberi Libri.Search in Google Scholar
Harder, Peter. 2005. Blending and polarization: Cognition under pressure. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1636–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.009.Search in Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2007. Critical discourse analysis and conceptualisation: Mental spaces, blended spaces and discourse spaces in the British National Party. In Christopher Hart & Dominik Lukeš (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory, 107–131. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Hougaard, Anders. 2005. Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences: A discussion of new phenomena, processes vs. products, and methodology. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 1653–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014.Search in Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 2013a. Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction. In Laura A. Janda (ed.), Cognitive linguistics – the quantitative turn: The essential reader, 1–32. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110335255.1Search in Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. (ed.). 2013b. Cognitive linguistics – the quantitative turn: The essential reader. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110335255Search in Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 2016. Linguistic profiles: A quantitative approach to theoretical questions. Język i metoda. 3. 127–145Available at: http://www.ejournals.eu/Language-and-Method/2016/2016/art/6710/ (accessed 5 August 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1991. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Peace Research 23(2/3). 25–32.10.1075/z.61.36lakSearch in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800524Search in Google Scholar
Łaziński, Marek. 2017. Gruppenbezeichnungen im polnischen Flüchtlingdisskurs vor dem sprachhistorischen Hintergrund [Group designations in Polish refugee discourse in historical perspective]. Paper presented at conference xenophobic discourses in Germany and Poland in the context of the European communication framework. Jena: Aleksander-Brückner-Zentrum, 15–16 June.Search in Google Scholar
Lederer, Jenny. 2013. ‘Anchor baby’: A conceptual explanation for pejoration. Journal of Pragmatics 57. 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.007.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2002. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Libura, Agnieszka. 2010. Teoria przestrzeni mentalnych i integracji pojęciowej. Struktura modelu i jego funkcjonalność [Theory of mental spaces and conceptual integration. Structure and functionality of the model]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Search in Google Scholar
Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga. 2017. Amalgamaty pojęciowe w dyskursie o otyłości [Conceptual blends in obesity discourse]. In Dorota Filar & Piotr Krzyżanowski (eds.), Barwy słów. Studia lingwistyczno-kulturowe [Colors of words. Linguistic and cultural studies], 455–472. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Universytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, Gordon R. & Kathleen Mc Tigue. 2007. The US obesity “epidemic”: Metaphor, method, or madness?. Social Epistemology 21(4). 391–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701746557.Search in Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2012. The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies 9(3). 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.688300.Search in Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2014. Metaphorical parasites and “parasitic” metaphors: Semantic exchanges between political and scientific vocabularies. Journal of Language and Politics 13(2). 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.02mus.Search in Google Scholar
ODEO: Oxford english dictionaries on line, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ (accessed 30 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar
OED: A new english dictionary on historical principles, edited by James A. H. Murray, Henry Bradley, William A. Craigie & Charles T. Onions. Available at: https://archive.org/details/oed02arch/page/52 (accessed 30 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Ogden, Charles K. & Ivor A. Richards 1989 [1923]. The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic.Search in Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1999a. Semantika glagolov vybora [The semantics of verbs of choice]. Известия Российской академии наук. Серия литературы и языка. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Science: Literature and Language 58(5–6). 34–42.Search in Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1999b. Metonimičeskije i metaforičeskije perenosy v paradigme glagola naznačit’ [Metonymic and metaphoric shifts in the paradigm of the verb naznačit’]. In Ekaterina Raxilina & Yakov Testelec (eds.), Typology and the theory of language: From description to explanation, 488–502. Moscow: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Pasamonik, Barbara. 2017. “Malowanie strasznego diabła” – metamorfoza obrazu uchodźcy w Polsce [‘Painting a scary devil’ – the metamorphosis of the image of refugee in Poland]. In Barbara Pasamonik & Urszula Markowska-Manista (eds.), Kryzys migracyjny: Perspektywa społeczno-kulturowa [Migration crisis: A sociocultural perspective], 15–45. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0048.Search in Google Scholar
SJPDor: Słownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish language], edited by Witold Doroszewski, Warsaw: PWN 1958–1969. Available at: http://www.sjpd.pwn.pl/ (accessed 30 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar
SL: Słownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish language], edited by Samuel Bogumił Linde, Lvov: W Drukarn Zakładu Ossolińskich 1854–1861 Available at: http://kpbc.umk.pl/publication/8173 (accessed 30 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar
SW: Słownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish language], edited by Jan Aleksander Karłowicz, Adam Antoni Kryński & Władysław Niedźwiedzki, Warsaw: Nakładem prenumeratorów i Kasy im. Mianowskiego, 1900–1927. Available at: http://ebuw.uw.edu.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=236anddirds=1andtab=3 (accessed 30 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar
SWiL: Słownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish language] by Aleksander Zdanowicz, Michał Bohusz Szyszka, January Filipowicz, Walerjan Tomaszewicz, Florjan Czepieliński & Wincenty Korotyński, Vilnus: Wydany staraniem i kosztem Maurycego Orgelbranda, edited by Aleksander Zdanowicz, Michał Bohusz Szyszka, January Filipowicz, Walerjan Tomaszewicz, Florjan Czepieliński & Wincenty Korotyński, Vilnus: Wydany staraniem i kosztem Maurycego Orgelbranda, 1861. Available at: https://eswil.ijp.pan.pl (accessed 30 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Stefaniak, Anna & Mikołaj Wiśniewski (Eds.), 2018. Uprzedzenia w Polsce 2017: Oblicza przemocy międzygrupowej [Prejudice in Poland 2017: Faces of inter-group violence]. Liberi Libri, Warsaw.Search in Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistic. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2010. Contact and borrowing. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 170–187. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444318159.ch8Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
