CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN TEACHERS' STRIKE DISCOURSE

Abstract

Based on the theory of conceptual metaphors and metaphors in discourse, this paper studies conceptual metaphors found in the Serbian teachers' strike discourse in the school year 2014/2015 with the aim of revealing the number, choice, usage and function of metaphors by comparing and contrasting the results in the very discourse. Going beyond the traditional definition of metaphor as a linguistic phenomenon, the conceptual metaphor theory of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson and the work of Zoltán Kövecses start from the notion itself and see it as a metaphorical structure whereas a metaphor is regarded as the embodiment in humans, their acts, thinking, speech and everyday experience. Conceptual metaphors consist of source and target domains (A and B) that share similarities, i. e. mappings and explain though such mappings abstract phenomena with the help of concrete and tangible ones. The very metaphor as formula B is A cannot be perceived as such in spoken or written form, but it is evoked and integrated in the metaphorical expression itself. The corpus is collected from online articles, magazines, talk shows and platforms, and data have been analysed via the metaphor identification procedure invented by Pragglejaz Group because the theory of conceptual metaphors lacks sophisticated methodology.

In the year of 2014 teachers in Serbia went on a strike because the government refused to exempt teachers from the 10-per-cent cut in public-sector salaries. The discourse about teachers' strike and the discourse of the government will be analysed and metaphors will be identified and explained in accordance with the aforementioned methodology.

The results show that labour union representatives and teachers use metaphors abundantly (over 90 various articles and more than 15 online video clips) while the government and the Ministry of Education employ a paucity of metaphors (over 10 articles and only one talk-show). There are several reasons for the very discrepancy. Enduring the austerity measures as the injured party, labour unions and teachers want to clarify their difficult and vulnerable position in the society, articulate their emotions and thoughts, recount their experience, and point out the importance of education for their future life. In addition, they are trying to dissuade the Ministry and government from pay cuts. The Ministry and government have failed to devote time to the very problem which is considered to be irrelevant and therefore have not spent words on it. They have failed to initiate a dispute of any kind and therefore there is a shortage of metaphors. A striking small number of metaphors by the government and Ministry may be explained in the following way – they have turned a blind eye and failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. It appears that, instead of dialogue, monologue is delivered by teachers.

Seeing that two counterparts see and interpret events differently, metaphors from different source domains are implied. The majority number of metaphors ascribed to teachers belongs to the source domains such as war, journey and destructions, while a scarcity of metaphors by the Ministry originate from the source domains such as sport/game and health/disease. Teachers and labour unions identify the strike as a war because they struggle for a better social, dignified and material position and put effort into saving the education system in Serbia. As the corpus of Ministry is devoid of metaphors from this domain, it seems as if teachers waged a war against themselves and nobody can hear them. To justify their policy, the Ministry considers austerity measures as the road to a better future for Serbia and the recovery of economy as a priority. Moreover, they have chosen sport and games source domains because they provide simple and scenario where the participants are transparent and the goals are clear. In the eyes of teachers the strike is perceived as a journey towards progress i.e. desired destination but no progress has been made so far – just regress. The strike is destruction since the Ministry tarnishes teachers' reputation and devastates the educational system with its actions. Although the school year is regarded to be ruined by both counterparts, teachers view austerity measures as a far more devastating effect on education. It can be concluded that both counterparts conceptualise the problem differently.

Teachers and labour unions perceive the strike as a war where they struggle for not only material needs but also spiritual ones. Strikes and cutting classes from 45 to 30 minutes as major weapons have turned out to be unsuccessful. Since the Ministry and the government have cut not only low salaries of teachers but also wages of teachers in strike, teachers have lost their money and time over the course of strike. They identify the government as the destroyer of education whereas the government refers to teachers as the demolishers of law. Having accomplished nothing, teachers evaluate their social position much worse than the slave's one. As for the budget allocation, teachers do not take part in decision-making and budget management even though they are part of the system and teach students directly. They can only accept the results of top-down policy unwillingly.

The Ministry and the government play a game only by their own rules (pay cuts cannot be abolished) and labour workers and teachers have to obey such rules. The aim of the game is to put aside as much money as they can to improve economy and build a sustainable and prosperous country at the expense of education. By this action triggered by the government teachers feel that students will direct their thoughts to gaining and squandering money instead of gaining knowledge. It may be concluded that economy, profit and market demands are much more important that the education itself.