Чешмеджиева Д. Media Presentations of Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the uk: The Metaphor of War in Articles on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the uk. – В journal of International Scientific Publications: Language, Individual & Society
Изтегляне 91.76 Kb.
|
- Навигация на страницата:
- Media Representations of Roma and Gypsies: The Metaphor of War in Newspaper MATERIALS on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK
- DT/ 29.10.04), „
- . That statement creates associations of blackmailing and use of force which add negative features to the image of the Gypsy group.
- Victory for the settled people is quoted in just one of the examples and even in that one the victory is partial – it is only a battle that has been won, not the war
| Чешмеджиева Д. Media Presentations of Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK: The Metaphor of War in Articles on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK. – В Journal of International Scientific Publications: Language, Individual & Society. Vol. 3. Info Invest: Bulgaria, 2009. 30-38
Media Representations of Roma and Gypsies: The Metaphor of War in Newspaper MATERIALS on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK Desislava S. Cheshmedzhieva Department of English Studies, University of Shumen, Bulgaria 115 Universitetska Str., 9712 Shumen Abstract: Ever since the first half of the nineteenth century the press has been referred to as the Fourth Estate. Media texts represent a powerful weapon to influence and form public opinion. They employ various strategies to acquire their goal. Metaphors are one of the most interesting and at the same time the most powerful devices that are used in the press. The usage of metaphors in media discourse also facilitates a more vivid presentation of the images that are being created and distributed. The metaphor of War is one of the most widely used devices when media talk about interethnic relations. What media stress upon is the clash between different cultures, the animosity and constant conflict between the ethnic groups. The presentation of these phenomena through the metaphor of War as well as the ideas that are conveyed form the focus of the paper. Key words: media discourse, ethnic groups, interethnic relations, metaphor, negativism The media have an active role in the construction, reflection and popularization of public opinion. They mirror and at the same time influence the processes inherent in society. They create images of events and people that remain printed in people’s minds and very often determine people’s reactions and attitudes should they experience situation similar to the one presented. This is especially true for interethnic encounters. People keep the images of the ethnic Other as presented in the media and subconsciously react to them the way media have shown other people act. Gypsies nowadays are one of the groups that are highly subjected to negativism which is often represented through acts of intolerance and discrimination. The usual stand, as Frazer has stated, is “that for the last century and longer, all Travellers, whatever their ethnic status, have been labelled as ‘criminals’, ‘deviants’, ‘vagabonds’ and ‘asocial’” (qtd. in Clark 2000). Gypsies are the “folk devils” (Cohen 2002) the society stands against. One of the features that characterize media discourse in Bulgaria and the UK is high frequency of metaphor usage (see Fowler 1991). Metaphors, as figures of speech that connect two seemingly unrelated fields, are highly expressive and very provocative. Media achieve their influential character through the transfer of features from one more specific domain to another which is more abstract. The usage of metaphors in media discourse also facilitates a more vivid presentation of the images that are being created and distributed. The corpus of the current paper is composed of three Bulgarian and three British newspapers1. The total number of analyzed materials is 1380 Bulgarian and 705 British texts. The metaphors allocated are around 3002, which could be roughly subdivided into 3 major metaphors. The metaphor of War is the one that is most extensively used in Bulgarian and British newspapers when they talk about Gypsies and Travellers in the UK and Roma in Bulgaria3. Due to the different social conditions that characterize the two groups, the topics that the metaphor introduces are also different. The feeling that is being created though is the same: animosity and intolerance. The metaphor adds negative features to the image both groups have in their respective countries and thus widens the gap between Gypsies and non-Gypsies. The goal of the paper is to study the linguistic means that activate the War metaphor and to analyze the feelings that the metaphor provokes. Bulgarian media discourse introduces the metaphor directly in the headlines of 40 of the texts that present encounters between Roma and Bulgarians:
The examples show different agents. In one of them the initiators are the Roma, in another one a Bulgarian, while in the third – an action that has been undertaken. Based on these examples it could be concluded that the metaphor of War is used to describe not only Roma actions but also the behavior of the Bulgarians towards the Roma. Looking at the whole corpus though, it is observed that the frequency of Roma agents in prominent position is much higher than that of Bulgarian agents. In the analyzed newspapers Roma appear as the agents in 71% of the headlines introducing the topic of crime. The lexemes and phrases that activate the War metaphor in texts on interethnic relations are usually “fight”, “army of volunteers”, “grenades”, “rebellion”, “vendetta”, “rioting”, used directly in the headlines. All said lexemes bring negative associations and create stereotypes about the members of the community as violent and hostile towards the non-Roma. Use of weapons in presented as the only possible measure to counteract the actions of the Roma and the results are obvious: „Частни охранители стрелят на месо” (“Private guards shoot to kill” /h/) (S/ 05.04.02). Verbs such as „надигам се” (“rise”), „беснея” (“rage”), „чупя” (“break”), „паля” (“burn”), „заплашвам” (“threaten”), as well as nouns such as „барикади” (“barricades”), „протести” (“protests”), „поражение” (“defeat”), „война” (“war”) also appear in Bulgarian headlines:
The impression that is being created is that no one could effectively stand up against the Roma. The examples also instill the feeling of the impunity of Roma community, which adds to the distance between Bulgarians and Roma. The texts on illegal Roma “ghettos” also use the metaphor of War to present the encounters between Roma and non-Roma:
The examples presented above suggest the repetition of the process of demolition and re-creation of illegal dwellings, as well as the intensity of the involvement of the two groups. The key words here are „битка” (“battle”), „бунт” (“rebellion”), „битка” (“fight”), and „фадрома” (“loader”) instead of а tank. Another way to activate the metaphor of War is through the usage of verbs that show bodily harm, such as „бия” (“beat”), „убивам” (“kill”), „наранявам” (“hurt”), as well as verbs like „вилнея” (“rage”), „атакувам” (“attack”), „шурмувам” (“storm”), „окупирам” (“occupy”), „нахлувам” (“invade”), „беснея” (“rave”), „воювам” (“fight”), „бомбардирам” (“bombard”). The perpetrators in most of the cases are marked by an ethnonym followed by another qualifier such as „биячите” (“the strong-arms”), „убийците” (“the killers”), „бандитите” (“the bandits”), „крадците” (“the thieves”), „вандали” (“vandals”), as well as through a noun phrase composed by a modifier and ethnonym or another noun „озверяла тълпа” (“fierce mob”), „ударни бригади” (“hit brigades”), „побеснели роми/ цигани” (“Roma/ Gypsies gone mad”), „безчинстващи цигани” (“marauding Gypsies”). Usually when the texts include clashes between Roma and non-Roma the lexis which is chosen is again from the topic field of War and rebellion, while the clash itself is described as „погром” (“pogrom”), „кървавият екшън” (“bloody drama”), „битка” (“battle”), „война” (“war”), „бунт” (“rebellion”), „размирици” (“rioting”), „сблъсъци” (“clashes”), „меле” (“mix-up”), „убийството” (“the killing”), „жестокото убийство” (“the cruel murder”) or simply as „бой” (“fight”):
The materials that report on Roma attacks on trains depict the attackers as „агресивни” (“aggressive”) and the perpetrators themselves as „нагли крадци” (“impudent thieves”), „мургави крадци” (“swarthy thieves”), „апаши” (“thugs”) and the way they act is presented as „нападения” (“attacks”), поставяне на „барикади” (“setting up barricades”), „акция” (“campaign”).
The texts which present the clash between Roma and Bulgarian people usually talk about Roma armed with primitive weapons, such as stones, rods, tiles, bottles, metal objects, and knives which correlate with the impression created of Roma as being cruel and animal-like. Said weapons add not only cruelty, but primitivism to the image of the Roma. Most of the encounters between the two communities end in a fatal way with victims who in most of the texts are Bulgarian:
The materials also stress on the meanness of the Roma who usually attack their victims in the rear:
Another feature of the texts on clashes between Bulgarians and Roma is the fact that in most of the cases it is the Roma who are presented as the initiators of the conflict. The lexemes and phrases used are „битка” (“battle”), „конфликтът избухна” (“the conflict broke out”), „пребивам до смърт” (“beat the life out of someone”), „атакувам” (“attack”), „въоръжени до зъби” (“armed to the teeth”), and „отмъщение” (“revenge”):
At the same time the Bulgarians are presented as the victims of the willfulness of the Roma. In 8 of the texts the feeling of a suppressed majority has been achieved through the portrayal of the Bulgarians as helpless: they are usually described as good people who do not meddle in Roma’s affairs and who do not want to confront the Roma, but who suffer from Roma’s rage:
The reaction of the victims is conveyed by themselves. The generalization is apparent in both cases: all Bulgarians are afraid and feel helpless and all Roma oppress the Bulgarians. The feeling is strengthened by a gradation of the emotions conveyed by the Bulgarians, who define their situation as „страх” (“fear”), „трагедия” (“tragedy”) and „терор” (“terror”) while the Gypsies „атакуват” (“attack”), „грабят и палят” (“loot and burn”), „тероризират” (“terrorize”), „тормозят” (“molest”), „крадат” (“steal”), „обират” (“rob”), „тарашат” (“rummage”), „палят огньове” (“set up fires”), „застрашават близките къщи и блокове” (“threaten the blocks and houses nearby”). There are 50 publications that speak of conflicts not only between Bulgarians and Roma but also of conflicts between the representatives of different Roma families or clans. These articles use the metaphor of Mafia, activated by lexemes included in different collocations such as „циганска мафия” (“Gypsy mafia”), „ромски кланове” (“Roma clans”), „ромски барони” (“Roma barons”). The ammunition that the Roma use in these cases is not the regular stones and wooden sticks as shown in the materials presenting interethnic conflicts, but guns, self-made rifles, grenades, “cocktails Molotov” and knives. Said metaphor is activated to the greatest extent in the texts presenting the Roma family Zrynkovy. These materials are 43 in number and they focus on the hostility felt towards Zrynkovy not only by the Bulgarians but by Roma representatives as well. The fact that Roma are presented at war not only with the Bulgarians but also with members of their own group adds further negativism to their image in the Bulgarian newspapers. Immigration is another topic that uses the metaphor of War. In these materials it is mostly presented through the notion that the advent of the Roma is like an „нашествие” (“invasion”). These texts focus on the multitude of immigrants described as an „наплив” (“influx”) or on the problems they create: „размирици” (“rioting”).
The analyzed examples prove the wide spectrum of usage of said metaphor. The suggestions carried by the source field are highly negative which also influences the attitude of the majority towards the Roma in Bulgaria. The lexemes that are most frequently used are the verbs “attack”, “beat”, “kill”, the nouns “war”, “invasion”, and “attackers”, “thugs” to describe the Roma. The two major topics that the metaphor introduces in the analyzed Bulgarian newspapers are of interethnic encounters and immigration. Many of the British headlines that discuss topics on Gypsies and Travellers use lexemes that activate the War metaphor as well: “Traveller wins court ruling /h/ (DT/ 20.11.02); Travellers invade pop tycoon’s estate /h/ (DT/ 12.05.05); Travellers win right to challenge eviction /h/ (DT/ 09.11.04); Despair as travellers invade a rural idyll /h/ (DT/ 16.06.04)”. The “battles” which the Gypsies in the UK lead are for the right to their own way of existence. The arrival of Gypsies at a site is very often presented through the metaphor of War. It defines the attitude between Gypsies and settled people which in most of the cases is of discrimination, nimbyism and racism. The metaphor is activated through the usage of verbs such as “win”, “invade”, “take over”, “come to rest”, as well as nouns like “battle” and “victory”. Only one of the used metaphors formed around the noun “battle” is with positive connotations and does not talk about hatred between the two groups but points out the possibility of dialogue and understanding when representatives of the two groups meet each other. The fact that the rest of the occurrences of the metaphor are negative strengthens the negativism between the two groups and provokes exhibitions of intolerance. The War metaphor in the British newspapers is used quite extensively. The Gypsies and the settlers are presented as two opposing battle camps. The lexemes that are being used present the different components that the process of war includes, for example: declaration of war, setting up a perimeter, leading battles, attacks, exhibition of military skills, taking up of position, getting into an ambush, leaving casualties. All of these components are used in the metaphoric presentation of the relationship between Gypsies and settled people. In most of the cases the metaphors create a negative image of the Gypsies. As the examples show the Gypsies are the ones who invade, attack, and occupy territory that is not theirs. The lexeme that marks highest frequency of occurrences for the description of the arrival of Gypsies at a territory is the verb “invade” and its derivatives. “The land has been in Lord Gage’s family for 500 years, and this is the first time that travellers have invaded his East Sussex estate (DT/ 26.12.03); ‘The potential is there for 2,000 people to move in, a village within a village. An invasion? Well, yes, how else would you describe it?’ (DT/ 15.08.04); [I]n the past week [High Ham] has fallen victim to an unwelcome rural phenomenon - an invasion of Irish travellers (DT/ 16.06.04)”. The metaphor is highly emotionally charged: the Gypsies are presented as the invaders who simply take any territory they set their foot on. The settled people on the other hand are presented as the victims who suffer the invasions. In order to enhance the feeling of doom and to add up to the intensity of the contrast between locals and “invaders”, the journalists use the picture of idyllic existence prior to the arrival of the Gypsies. The natural outcome is that the idyll is being destroyed by the “invaders”. “Despair as travellers invade a rural idyll /h/ (DT/ 16.06.04); The rural idyll remains a vain illusion (G/ 08.08.04)”. The next phase of the war is the seizure of land presented through verbs such as “take over” and “occupy” in 6 of the analyzed texts: “‘But their community just grew and grew and others came in. They took over four housing estates’ (DT/ 01.06.04); Dale Farm, Crays Hill, Essex - Around 500 Irish and some English travellers occupy this site, on green belt land (GO/ 21.11.04); [T]hese travellers took over the village railway station car park’ (DТ/ 16.04.05)”. The corresponding reaction of the settled residents is also presented through the metaphor of War: “riots”, readiness for a “battle”, and the attempts of the authorities to “to quell the growing tensions”. The frequency of usage of the lexeme “battle” and its derivatives as part of the whole process is also very high. 21 of the analyzed texts use words and expressions such as “battlefield”, “lengthy eviction battle”, “long-running legal battle”, “series of court battles”, “a long battle”, “battlegrounds”, “gipsy battle”, “eight-year legal battle”, “pitch battles”, “locked in battle”, “fight”, “court fight”, the last phrase used to mark the action undertaken by the Gypsies against a law that has been applied. In the rest of the examples the battles are initiated by the settled residents against the Gypsies: “Residents in Cottenham, Cambs, and Eckington, Worcs, have also been battling to remove similar groups (DT/ 16.06.04); Essex County Council education officials claimed last week that the school had become a pawn in a bigger battle being waged by some villagers to get the travellers out (DT/ 08.11.04)”. The military activities are conveyed through phrases such as: „prevent [a site from] falling into the hands of gipsies” (DT/ 29.10.04), „planning a three-pronged attack, with a secret weapon” (G/ 11.03.05), „at the vanguard of a new tactic” (DT/ 15.08.04), „campaign” (G/ 26.07.04), „defend your castle” (G/ 01.08.01), „dig trenches” (DT/ 16.04.05), as well as expressions: “a naked attempt to ram through a change of planning use” (DT/ 26.10.04), “ride roughshod over the due process” (DT/ 10.12.04), used to describe the way Gypsies treat rules and regulations. The Gypsies during the war actions are presented as “encamped” and the object of actions aimed at recovering “possession of the land”. Apart from that they actively defend their right to stay on the occupied territories. The Gypsies burn caravans and form fire barricades. Whenever Gypsies move on a new territory they are defined as moving with “military-style precision” and place the local authorities under “the crossfire”. The way in which the Gypsies try to defend their right to live at a piece of land is once again expressed figuratively through the War metaphor as holding “a gun to the head of local authorities” (DT/ 09.11.04). That statement creates associations of blackmailing and use of force which add negative features to the image of the Gypsy group. The locals are presented as “under siege” and as “prisoners in [their] own homes”, while the Gypsies themselves claim that in the UK they themselves are like under siege. The end of the war could be marked as a victory or a truce. In most of the cases the victory is on the side of the Gypsies marked mostly by the verb “to win” or through a phrase with the noun “victory”. Victory for the settled people is quoted in just one of the examples and even in that one the victory is partial – it is only a battle that has been won, not the war: “The village residents’ association said it was now advising locals to pay the tax but claimed its campaign had ended in victory, with bailiffs set to remove foundations for more caravans at the site (G/ 07.06.04); A four-hour standoff, observed by 40 police officers and a number of firefighters, followed before the bailiffs were called off. The travellers’ spokesman, John Lee, said: ‘I think we can claim a victory’ (G/ 13.01.04)”. There is only one text which talks of a truce between the two camps: “Perhaps this explains why in Smithy Fen, an uneasy truce seems to have broken out between Travellers and settled residents” (DT/ 15.08.04). Even in this example when there is a talk of truce between the two sides the lexis that comes before the act itself is negative: both the phrasal verb “break out” and the adjective “uneasy” hint on the possible short life of the calm. All examples show the variety of expressions used for the presentation of the relationships between the settled people and the Gypsies in cases when there is a question of allocating additional camping sites. The fact that the metaphor of War is so widely applied stresses on the tension and misunderstanding between the two groups. The metaphors do not talk about the reason for the conflict or about the possibility of its peaceful solution. Thus the clash seems inevitable. The negative attitude towards the Gypsies is further stressed by the metaphor shown above as they are attributed the status of conquerors, of people who shatter the peaceful existence of the settled people and who on top of all that are the eventual winners in that conflict. The analysis carried on Bulgarian and British newspapers shows more similarities in the usage of the metaphor of War than differences. The media discourse in both countries as became obvious resorts to the language of war in order to stress on the intensity of the conflict between Gypsies and non-Gypsies. The metaphor, being very prolific in terms of words used to express different aspects of the War is highly provocative and creates primarily negative feelings towards the community. It widens the distance between Gypsies and non-Gypsies and enhances the negative image of Gypsies that the media in both countries distribute. References:
1 The newspapers that have been analyzed are the British: The Guardian (G/), The Daily Telegraph (DT/), and The Independent (I/); and the Bulgarian: Standart (St/), Dnevnik (Dn/), and Sega (S/). Throughout the paper the quoted materials will be marked by an abbreviation of the newspaper and the date the material has been issued. 2 The examples that are quoted are just a small part of the whole corpus. 3 The ethnonyms that are used to mark the two groups in the UK and Bulgaria are used according to the accepted, politically correct norms of reference: the representatives of the group in the UK are referred to as Gypsies and Travellers, while the Bulgarian representatives as Roma and in some cases Gypsies as an equivalent to the Bulgarian “tzigani”. The ethnonym Gypsies is also used in cases of generalizations that are valid for both groups. 4 /h/ is the abbreviation that is used to mark “headline”. 5 Translations of Bulgarian media texts are mine. Каталог: tadmin -> upload -> storage storage -> Литература на факта. Аналитизъм. Интерпретативни стратегии. Въпроси и задачи storage -> Лекция №2 Същност на цифровите изображения Въпрос. Основни положения от теория на сигналите storage -> Лекция 5 система за вторична радиолокация storage -> Толерантност и етничност в медийния дискурс storage -> Ethnicity and tolerance in media discourse revisited Desislava St. Cheshmedzhieva-Stoycheva abstract storage -> Тест №1 Отбележете невярното твърдение за подчертаните думи storage -> Лекции по Въведение в статистиката storage -> Търсене на живот във вселената увод storage -> Еп. Константинови четения – 2010 г някои аспекти на концептуализация на богатството в руски и турски език Изтегляне 91.76 Kb. Сподели с приятели:
|