انجمن زبان شناسی ایران زبان و زبان‌شناسی 23223847 21 41 2025 12 22 cognitive war along functional war جنگ شناختی کنار جنگ تقشی 1 30 10742 10.30465/lsi.2026.52753.1824 FA مهدی دمالی امیری دکترای زبان‌شناسی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران 0000-0002-6749-8961 مصطفی عاصی استاد، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران 0000-0003-3799-1103 ابوالقاسم اسدی استادیار، گروه آموزشی الهیات ، دانشگاه فرهنگیان ، تهران، ایران 0009-0001-4872-7466 Journal Article 2025 08 14 War, as one of the most complex social phenomena, has always been intertwined with ideology and power. In this context, language serves as a powerful tool, playing a central role in shaping public perceptions of war, justifying military actions, and maintaining or altering power relations. Critical Discourse Analysis, as an analytical framework, examines how political and media discourses construct, reproduce, or challenge ideologies.The cognitive approach in such analysis emphasizes mental mechanisms such as framing, metaphors, and the activation of schemata, through which language influences our thinking and perception of war. Meanwhile, the functional approach focuses on the social functions of discourse, including legitimizing violence, dehumanizing the enemy, and mobilizing public opinion.This study, focusing on war discourses, demonstrates how power is exercised through language and how ideologies serve to justify war and preserve the existing order. Language is the driving engine of the ideology of war. The characteristics of war ideology—its universality, power, invisibility, naturalness, and the methods of its continuity and transformation—are all rooted in its dependence on language. At the same time, this analysis considers the ethical implications of war discourse and highlights the necessity of critical awareness of the role of language in shaping public perception and social behavior.Ultimately, this research compares the effectiveness of both approaches in revealing the workings of dominant powers in the creation and justification of war. 1. Introduction War, as one of the most complex social phenomena, has always been intertwined with ideology and power. Beyond its physical and political manifestations, war is a profoundly discursive construct—produced, legitimized, and perpetuated through language. Language not only narrates conflict but also shapes public understanding, moral justification, and political alignment. This study explores war discourse through the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), emphasizing the intricate relationship between language, ideology, and power. By examining how war-related narratives are linguistically constructed, this paper seeks to uncover the mechanisms through which discursive practices sustain systems of domination and justify violence. Accordingly, the research aims to (1) analyze the linguistic mechanisms that shape social cognition and perception of war; (2) identify how ideological structures are reproduced or contested in political and media discourse; and (3) compare cognitive and functional approaches in their capacity to reveal the power dynamics underlying war narratives. Research Question How does language function as an instrument of ideological control and justification in war discourse? 2. Literature Review Cap (2008), inspired by the pragmatic analysis of political discourse, defines proximization as a strategy for legitimizing interventionist actions. Politicians, through symbolic shifts in the boundaries of space, time, and value, make a distant threat appear immediate and urgent, thereby rendering military action seemingly necessary. Lukin (2014) explored the hidden semiotic mechanisms in language upon which ideology depends. Her book demonstrates the ideological power of language through one of humanity’s most influential belief systems: the ideologies that allow us to perceive war as legitimate, admirable, and even sacred, while simultaneously condemning and prohibiting violence. To this end, she draws on extensive multimodal linguistic corpora, including the British National Corpus and media reports on the 2003 Iraq invasion from outlets in Australia, the U.S., Europe, and Asia. By combining detailed textual analysis with corpus-linguistic methods, her work provides an empirical account that exposes the astonishing reach of war ideologies and their hidden coercive power. Oddo (2011) shows that President Bush employed morally charged lexical-grammatical resources to construct the semantic categories of us and them, thereby reinforcing an ideological dualism that made the unpleasant realities of the Iraq War appear necessary and inevitable. Sabah (2010) analyzed and compared the use of conceptual metonymies related to the Iraq War. This study demonstrates how the media, through conceptual metonymies, structure war events in specific ways and shape the audience’s understanding of us and them. Mirfakhraei (2016) found that in tense socio-political and international contexts such as the U.S.–Iraq War, even within the conventions of balanced news reporting, persuasive strategies were employed to advance certain specific objectives. 3. Methodology The study employs a qualitative discourse-analytic approach, integrating both cognitive-linguistic and functional-linguistic frameworks. The data comprise selected samples of political speeches, media reports, and editorials that construct, justify, or contest war-related narratives. The analysis follows three stages: 1. Textual Analysis: Identifying key linguistic features such as metaphors, frames, evaluative expressions, and lexical choices. 2. Cognitive Mapping: Examining how these features activate mental models and conceptual schemas related to war (e.g., “war as defense,” “enemy as evil,” “violence as necessity”). 3. Functional Interpretation: Assessing the communicative and ideological purposes these structures serve—legitimation, moral alignment, mobilization, or resistance. 4.Results Preliminary findings indicate that war discourse operates through a dynamic interplay between ideological invisibility and linguistic normalization. Ideologies of war become pervasive precisely because they appear natural and commonsensical. Three major mechanisms are observed in this respect: 1. Metaphorical Framing: Common metaphors such as “war as purification,” “nation as body,” or “enemy as disease” provide cognitive justification for violence by embedding it in moral or naturalistic frames. 2. Dehumanization Strategies: Lexical patterns portray adversaries as abstract, collective threats rather than human agents, reducing empathy and legitimizing aggression. 3. Legitimation through Rationalization: War is framed as inevitable or defensive, invoking necessity, duty, or moral obligation as justifications for violence. Moreover, counter-discourses that challenge dominant narratives employ reframing strategies emphasizing human cost, moral accountability, and universal ethics. These alternative discourses expose the ideological nature of “neutral” reporting and highlight the potential of language to resist power. 5. Discussion The study demonstrates that language is not merely reflective but constitutive of ideology and power. Through discourse, social actors construct and stabilize hierarchies of legitimacy. The ideology of war derives its strength from its linguistic roots: its ubiquity, its invisibility, and its perceived naturalness. From a cognitive perspective, linguistic structures activate shared conceptual schemas that make certain interpretations appear self-evident. From a functional perspective, these same structures serve pragmatic purposes in maintaining social cohesion, mobilizing support, and silencing dissent. Together, these insights underscore the ethical responsibility of discourse producers and analysts alike. Awareness of the ideological force of language is essential for cultivating critical literacy and democratic accountability. 6. Conclusion By integrating cognitive and functional approaches within CDA, this research reveals how language operates as a powerful vehicle of ideological control in the discourse of war. The findings show that war is not only fought on battlefields but also in the symbolic domain of words, metaphors, and narratives. Language thus functions as the engine of war ideology, shaping perception, moral reasoning, and collective behavior. Recognizing the moral and political consequences of such discursive constructions encourages a critical awareness of how linguistic choices contribute to the justification of violence and the perpetuation of existing power structures. Ultimately, the study calls for an emancipatory discourse practice that resists ideological manipulation and promotes a more humane and reflective understanding of conflict. جنگ به عنوان یکی از پیچیده‌ترین پدیده‌های اجتماعی، همواره با ایدئولوژی و قدرت در هم تنیده بوده است. در این میان، زبان به عنوان ابزاری قدرتمند، نقش محوری در شکل‌دهی به درک عمومی از جنگ، توجیه اقدامات نظامی و تثبیت یا تغییر روابط قدرت ایفا می‌کند. تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی به عنوان چارچوبی تحلیلی، به بررسی این موضوع می‌پردازد که چگونه گفتمان‌های سیاسی و رسانه‌ای، ایدئولوژی‌ها را می‌سازند، بازتولید می‌کنند یا به چالش می‌کشند. رویکرد شناختی در این تحلیل، بر مکانیسم‌های ذهنی مانند قالب‌بندی، استعاره‌ها و فعال‌سازی طرح‌واره‌ها تأکید می‌کند که از طریق آن‌ها زبان بر تفکر و ادراک ما از جنگ تأثیر می‌گذارد. همچنین، رویکرد نقشی به بررسی کارکردهای اجتماعی گفتمان، از جمله مشروع‌سازی خشونت، غیرانسانی‌سازی دشمن و بسیج افکار عمومی می‌پردازد. این مطالعه با تمرکز بر گفتمان‌های جنگی نشان می‌دهد که چگونه قدرت از طریق زبان اعمال می‌شود و چگونه ایدئولوژی‌ها در خدمت توجیه جنگ و حفظ نظم موجود قرار می‌گیرند. زبان موتورمحرک ایدئولوژی جنگ است. ویژگی‌های ایدئولوژی جنگ —از جمله فراگیری آن، قدرت آن، نامرئی بودن و طبیعی‌بودن آن، و روش‌های تداوم و تغییر آن—همگی از وابستگی آن به زبان نشأت می‌گیرند. در عین حال، این تحلیل به پیامدهای اخلاقی گفتمان جنگ توجه کرده و ضرورت آگاهی انتقادی از نقش زبان در شکل‌دهی به درک عمومی و رفتارهای اجتماعی را برجسته می‌سازد. در نهایت، این پژوهش برای درک عمیق‌تر از رابطه بین جنگ، ایدئولوژی و قدرت کارآمدی هر دو رویکرد را در بازنمایی فدرت های سلطه در ایجاد و توجیه جنگ مقایسه می کند.

https://lsi-linguistics.ihcs.ac.ir/article_10742_4c26f3c294ff6d640721fc6519792840.pdf