Fight Metaphors in Spain ’ s Presidential Speeches : J

This article investigates the metaphorical conceptualization of terrorism by president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who came into power soon after the biggest terrorist attack in Spain on March 11 , 2004. Specifically, it examines how th terrorism is conceptualized via metaphors through the notion of fight, and their conceptual implication in discourse. I will refer to these as Fight Metaphors. The research questions addressed are as follows: 1. What Fight Metaphors are used in the discursive construction of terrorism? 2. How do Fight Metaphors contribute to support Zapatero’s anti-terrorism political agenda? I follow a combination of a cognitive and a pragmatic approach from a corpus-based analysis perspective. The cognitive approach is based on Lakoff’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory (1993), and the pragmatic one is based on Charteris-Back’s Critical Metaphor Analysis (2004). The corpus of investigation comprises 58 Spanish political speeches over a threeyear period (2004-2007). Findings reveal that Fight Metaphors constitute the pivotal node that simultaneously performs various functions at several levels: cognitive, rhetorical, and ideological in order to promote his anti-terrorism political ideology.


Introduction
Terrorism has been a major social issue in Spain for more than forty years.March 11 , 2004 th (also known as 11-M) is remembered as the most devastating terrorist attack that occurred in Spain, just three days prior to the general presidential election.President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is widely believed to have come to power in April 2004 because of his anti-terrorism agenda, and his priority can be aptly summarized with the conceptual metaphor: TERRORISM IS A FIGHT.However, in presidential speeches against terrorism, Zapatero uses metaphors that draw heavily from the source domain of fight, and are connotative of violence.I will refer to these as Fight Metaphors.This contrast results in an apparent contradiction of having a propeace political ideology but using language substantially composed of violence.The contradiction raises the question of why Zapatero uses Fight Metaphors when his underlying political ideology is a peaceful one.This article investigates how terrorism is conceptualized through metaphorical expressions related to the notion of fight, and their conceptual implication in discourse.Particularly, the analysis shows how president Zapatero presents terrorism within a conceptual Fight Frame to support his anti-terrorism political agenda.The research questions are as follows: 1.What Fight Metaphors are used in the discursive construction of terrorism?This includes not only the metaphoric conceptualization of the word terrorism in itself, but also other aspects of terrorism.For example, how to solve this conflict, how Spaniards dealt with terrorist attacks, and their fear of living in a country where there are terrorist attacks, among other aspects.2. How do Fight Metaphors contribute to support Zapatero's anti-terrorism political agenda?
The analysis is based on 58 political speeches of Zapatero over a three-year period (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007).All speeches are related to terrorism.For the purpose of this investigation, the theoretical and methodological approach undertaken combines two main perspectives: The cognitive approach is based on George Lakoff's Conceptual Metaphor Theory (1993), and the pragmatic approach is based on Jonathan Charteris-Black's Critical Metaphor Analysis (2004).The cognitive approach will help to understand and to interpret the metaphor as a part of human thought, while the pragmatic analysis will help to interpret the context in which the metaphors occur.
After this introduction, a brief background about the historical and geopolitical context of terrorism in Spain will be provided (in Section 2).Next, Section 3 explores the role of metaphor in political discourse where I will refer to some major studies on terrorism.Section 4 presents the corpus and theoretical framework.Section 5 is devoted to the analysis and results of the investigation.Finally, Section 6 closes with a synthesis of the conclusions.

Historical and geopolitical context: Terrorism in Spain
This section briefly mentions the historical and geopolitical context in which Fight Metaphors are employed.Since it is not feasible to comprehensively illustrate the entire Spanish political history, this section focuses on the events that are most relevant to the analysis.
Spain has undergone numerous political changes.The establishment of democracy after almost 40 years of Franco's dictatorship has been marked by obstacles.Franco's dictatorship promoted a strong censorship against regionalism.This created widespread discontent and provoked an anti-Castilian sentiment, especially in the Basque Country, which led to the rise of terrorist movements.Franco's death in 1975 brought an end to dictatorship and gave way to the inception of a transition period that ultimately led to Spain becoming a liberal democratic state with the establishment of the constitution in 1978.The dictatorship ended, but terrorism did not.Terrorism has been one of the main concerns of Spain's Government.Since the late 1960s, terrorist attacks started in Spain.Most of these were perpetrated by terrorist groups such as ETA and GRAPO.International groups such as Al-Qaeda also attempted to disrupt democracy with the Madrid train bombing attack on March 11 , 2004. th This shows that in Spain terrorism is not merely linked to a national threat but also to an international one.With all these terrorist groups combined, more than 1200 victims have been killed in attacks until 2004 (Pulgar Gutiérrez, 2004).11-M was the deadliest terrorist attack occurred in Spain, which killed 192 people and left around 1600 wounded.11-M attack came exactly 911 days after "9-11" World Trade Center terrorist attack in New York City, USA.Both attacks were attributed to the terrorist group Al-Qaeda (Pulgar Gutiérrez, 2004).It is contended that this date was specifically chosen to impact Spanish politics.The Spanish president at that time, José María Aznar, backed the US-led invasion of Iraq despite the discontent of the Spanish public who were strongly against it.The 11-M attack took place just three days before the general elections, scheduled for March 14 , 2004.In the election, the th presiding Spanish government Popular Party (right wing) was unexpectedly defeated by the Socialist Party (left wing), whose candidate José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero became president (until present).It is believed that the general public accredited the attack to the political policies of the previous government.It is thus contended that Zapatero's anti-war and antiterrorism ideology was the deciding factor in his coming into power.This is an important factor to consider while analyzing Zapatero's metaphors related to terrorism.Zapatero's main objective, since the beginning of his presidency, has been to achieve peace with ETA, and to eventually put an end to terrorism in Spain.

Literature review: Metaphor and Politics
Research, since the 1980s, shows that the use of metaphor in framing political discussion has become a major linguistic device, and a tool used by politicians (Pujante and Morales, 1996-7;Howe, 1988;Fernández Lagunilla, 1999;Lakoff, 2001Lakoff, , 2003Lakoff, , 2005;;Pérez Rull, 2002;Mussolf, 2003;Charteris-Black, 2005).Thompson (1996) emphasizes this in his article Politics without metaphor is like a fish without water.Thompson (1996:188) further indicates that metaphors help to make the central concepts of politics such as ideology, influence, and power, more tangible and concrete to the general public.Metaphors are capable of restructuring concepts and opinions (Kyratzis, 2001: 64).Hence, they are used for transmitting ideology.Metaphor is thus one of the means for political change (Kyratzis, 2001: 65).González García (1998: 15) indicates that if metaphors were removed from political language, then political language would be devoid of any potential to transfer useful knowledge about our life in society.He affirms that metaphors have an important role in political argumentation since they persuade and may be part of taking political action.Kövecses (2002:62) indicates that "politics in general is rife with conceptual metaphors".Lakoff and Johnson (1980:159) state that metaphors play a central role in constructing social and political reality.Also, metaphor is a convenient and natural way through which political leaders communicate their beliefs, identity, and ideology.Charteris-Black (2005: 198) states that the choice of metaphors used by a politician determines leadership style because "like the choice of clothes by an individual, it is a way of appealing to others to share a virtuous social identity".Fernández Lagunilla (1999: 69) indicates that metaphor is an indirect verbal strategy that allows the politician to talk about delicate issues at the time that gives him/her communicative immunity.She provides some examples of metaphor usage in the rhetoric of some Spanish politicians such as Jose María Aznar, Felipe González, Julio Anguita, and José Borrell.
Metaphors are important in politics because they are used to frame political debate.Politicians use frames when reporting political issues because frames simplify complex information in a way that it becomes more accessible to the general public.Lakoff (2004: XV) argues that frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world.The speaker transmits certain ideas that reflect his belief system and ideology.Lakoff (2004: 4) further points that the speaker consciously highlights some aspects while omitting others.The ability to frame complex political issues such as war or terrorism is crucial for the politician since they are used to justify measures for or against them.Lakoff (2001Lakoff ( , 2003Lakoff ( , 2005) ) indicates the importance of metaphorical reasoning in framing political events, as the justification of a war or a terrorist attack.For example, Lakoff (2003) analyzed the underlying conceptual system of the frame used by president George Herbert Walker Bush to justify the first Gulf War on moral grounds.Bush outlined in his speech what Lakoff (2003: 4) refers to as a "fairy tale structure", where there is a villain, a hero, and a victim that metaphorically symbolizes Iraq/Saddam Hussein, US, and Kuwait respectively.Within the fairy tale structure, Bush justified the need to go to war by using a rescue scenario.This means, US (the hero) rescued Kuwait (the victim) from the cruel immoral hands of the villain (Iraq/Saddam Hussein).Lakoff (2003) pointed out that framing the war as a moral justification was the only way by which Americans would accept the war.Following Lakoff's work, Rohrer (1995) analyzed the analogical reasoning behind the metaphors used by G.W Bush to refer to the Iraqi invasion.Bush mainly used the conceptual metaphor NATION IS A PERSON to describe the Gulf Crisis.Rohrer mentions that president Bush's metaphors were widely accepted by the American public, and this was a decisive factor in gathering support for the 1991 Persian Gulf War.Thus, Bush argued for the Iraq invasion with metaphors that were chosen specifically to gain acceptance and support from the general public.Lakoff (2001) analyzed the conceptual system of how the September 11 (2001) attack on the World Trade Center was framed by Bush's administration.He pointed out the power of images and how images may be considered symbols that reflect our identity.He explained that the buildings of the World Trade Center represented the society, people standing and the collapse of the towers represented the killing of people, and The Pentagon represented a vaginal image, which was penetrated from the air by the plane as a missile.Charteris-Black (2005) analyzed the metaphorical language of different political leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and George W. Bush when referring to terrorism.This author (2005: 92) reports how Thatcher describes terrorism as a social problem and refers to it as the fight against terrorism.He (2004: 150) also indicates how Blair shifts in what he refers to as evil before and after September 11 , 2001.Before this date, Blair referred to evil th as crime, anti-social behavior, racial intolerance, drug abuse, etc.However, today, terrorism is also portrayed as evil:"This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today.It is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of life and we, the democracies of this world, are going to have to come together and fight it together and eradicate this evil completely from our world" (11 September 2001) (adapted from Charteris-Black, 2005: 150).Charteris-Black (2005: 162) also mentions how Blair conceptualizes terrorism by using personification.Blair portrayed terrorism as an animate entity like malign offspring that is fed by the indecision of the United Nations.He (2005: 174) indicates that George Walker Bush frequently uses personification as a way of making evaluations.In Bush's discourse, terrorists are personified with a strong negative evaluation such as vermin, insects, and parasites.Besides, hunting and animal images were employed early in his speeches to portray terrorists (Charteris-Black, 2005: 182).The device of personification is employed to construct the image of the enemy as dangerous and inhuman in order to later show its destruction.The conceptual metaphor implied is TERRORISTS ARE DANGEROUS ANIMALS.Furthermore, terrorists are also portrayed as animals that can be eliminated, that is, parasites.The conceptual metaphor implied is TERRORISTS ARE PARASITES.

Corpus and theoretical framework
The corpus data was analyzed using a combination of two approaches: Lakoff's Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Charteris-Black's Critical Metaphor Analysis.The former is a cognitive approach based on the following works: Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Lakoff (1987).The latter is a pragmatic approach based on Charteris-Black (2004, 2005).The cognitive framework will provide the conceptual metaphor that structures the metaphorical system used by Zapatero when he conceptualizes terrorism.The pragmatic approach is based on Discourse Analysis, and it aims to identify mainly the intentions and ideologies underlying language usage (Charteris-Black, 2004: 34).He mentions that his method gives insights into the beliefs, attitudes, and feelings of the discourse community in which they are found.
The corpus consists of 58 political speeches related to terrorism from April 2004 to April 2007.This corpus was taken from the official web site of La Moncloa (http://www.lamoncloa.es/default.htm),which provides the official transcription of the speeches.Only the parts of the political speeches that mentioned aspects related to terrorism were selected from the corpus.The extracted portions were identified manually.The conceptualization of terrorism includes aspects related to it such as: how to solve the conflict, the consequences of terrorism in the Spanish society, possible solutions that Zapatero provides to end terrorism, how terrorism affects not only citizens of Spain but also citizens of other countries, and how citizens face terrorist attacks.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory was proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Metaphors We Live By (1980).This cognitive theory posits that the way we perceive the world is reflected in our thought, which is structured metaphorically.Lakoff and Johnson indicate that the metaphors we use in our daily lives reflect our way of understanding the world.The term conceptual metaphor represents a set of ontological correspondences between two semantic fields or domains.Lakoff (1987: 276) indicates that each metaphorical expression has a source domain, a target domain, and a source-to-target mapping.Their theory refers mainly to metaphors in everyday life, and not in politics.However, subsequent research studies show that their cognitive theory is applicable to the study of metaphor in the political discourse.
Critical Metaphor Analysis consists of the following steps: metaphor identification, interpretation, and explanation.Metaphor identification includes the identification of candidate metaphors, which are metaphorical expressions, as well as metaphor keywords, which are the words used metaphorically.Along with this, conceptual metaphors and conceptual keys, which are more general conceptual metaphors, will also be inferred from the metaphorical expressions.The procedure can be exemplified as follows: Candidate metaphors (la patología del terrorismo, la epidemia del terrorismo) > Metaphor keyword (patología, epidemia) > Source domain (Body) > Conceptual metaphors (TERRORISM IS A PATHOLOGY, TERRORISM IS A PLAGUE) > Conceptual key (TERRORISM IS AN ILLNESS).
In this study, the analysis focuses only on the conceptualization of terrorism related to one lexical domain, fight.The second step of the approach, metaphor interpretation, aims at interpreting the metaphorical elements in relation to their contextual meaning in the discourse.This includes the social, historical, and geopolitical context in which the metaphor occurs.The last step, metaphor explanation, reveals the purpose of the speaker when using a specific metaphorical element.For constraint reasons of space, the analysis will discuss the most relevant examples.

Analysis and results
This section is twofold.First, I demonstrate that the notion of fight is predominantly used in Zapatero's discourse on terrorism.In order to do so, it presents overall findings in relation to the metaphorical elements (metaphorical expressions, metaphor keywords, conceptual metaphors, and conceptual keys) that conceptualize terrorism and aspects related to it.Second, it provides explicit evidence and examines in detail how the elements mentioned previously contribute to promote Zapatero's anti-terrorism political agenda.
It should be noted that some of the metaphor keywords seem to be more central to the idea of fight than others.However, its contextual meaning made possible to group them under this domain.In this respect, they seem to be borderline cases that can belong to more than one source domain.This is the case of metaphor keywords such as herir, dañar, aislar, arrodillarse, azote, coartada, and forjar.Let us examine some cases.The verbs herir and dañar denote physical damage or pain.Therefore, they can be related to the source domain of fight, because both actions are consequences of a fight or a battle.However, they could also be related to the notion of body because physical pain is realized in a person.In this case, the metaphor keyword could be related to more than one source domains (fight and body).Also, the verb arrodillarse implies primarily a movement downwards of folding the knees.
However, its contextual meaning reveals an association to the notion of fight.Arrodillarse is used to indicate the attitude of the Spanish Government in his fight against terrorism.The context indicates that the Spanish Government is depicted as a person that has and will never surrender to terrorism: "Ningún Gobierno español se ha arrodillado frente al terror y ninguno se arrodillará".[No Spanish Government has knelt to terrorism, and never will do] (12/13/2004) Coartada is another interesting example.This keyword is used to indicate that the notion of idea is portrayed metaphorically as an entity that has an alibi to justify assassination for the cause of terrorism.In this regard, political ideologies are metaphorically depicted as individuals that justify the action of killing others: "Ninguna idea, por legítima que sea o parezca, puede servir de coartada para el asesinato o la barbarie.[No idea, as legitimate as it may seem, could serve as alibi for assasination or barbarity] (9/15/2005) The data shows that the most frequent metaphor keyword is the noun la lucha, which appears 81 times.This keyword appears repeatedly as part of the following metaphorical expression, la lucha contra el terrorismo, which is the most dominant expression in the corpus.This metaphorical expression can be further realized as part of the following conceptual metaphor: TERRORISM IS A FIGHT.Its high frequency in the corpus reveals a significant aspect in the conceptualization of terrorism.This is, the most frequent aspect conceptualized by Zapatero is not terrorism/terrorists nor those who are against it/them, but rather on how to solve this social problem.This reveals his political intention of providing a solution to this long-term problem.
Although the most common keyword is a noun, the majority of the metaphor keywords are verbs (30).Verbs are actions per se and their contextual use is frequently associated with a call for action.On this basis, it should be noted that the etymological meaning of most of the verbs is related to physical action (atacar, luchar, combatir, conquistar, derrotar, defender, golpear, resistir, vencer, etc.).However, their contextual meaning never refers to a physical action but to a pacific, ideological, moral, and rational one.The most dominant verb metaphor keyword is combatir, which appears 20 times.As it occurs with lucha, combatir also appears as part of the following metaphorical expression: combatir el terrorismo.This expression can be conceptually represented as: TERRORISM IS A COMBAT.This conceptual metaphor is of political significance in Zapatero's discourse.It is intended to be a call of action to end up with terrorism, but not through physical violence.Finally, the only adjective metaphor keyword in the corpus, esgrimible, is used to emphasize any cause should be justified with the use of violence.
The data shows that the conceptualization of terrorism focuses mainly on three aspects: terrorism in itself, those who opposed to it, and how to solve this social problem.Let us analyze first the metaphorical conceptualization of terrorism.Within the conceptual framework of fight, terrorism is metaphorically depicted as an enemy: (1) El terrorismo es, sin duda alguna, un enemigo terrible.[Terrorism is, without any 1 doubt, a terrible enemy] (11/04/2006) Example (1) presents terrorism as a terrible enemy.The conceptual metaphor realized as follows: TERRORISM IS THE ENEMY.The metaphor keyword enemigo represents two aspects: First, terrorism is personified as the enemy.Zapatero portrays politics as a battleground.His battleground has two groups, those who are with him, and the enemies who are against him.Second, by describing terrorism as an enemy, terrorism has some implications.The main implication is that an enemy can be fought bravely and defeated; therefore, terrorism can be defeated.Another implication is that an enemy is a human being that can be identified and recognized, with a name and a physical image, like the real terrorists.Furthermore, Zapatero exploits the bellicose language to emphasize that the action of terrorism is characterized as cruel and violent through noun metaphor keywords such as la amenaza, el azote, and la barbarie: (2) Definitivamente, y en términos europeos, hoy se ha aprendido que nadie está exento de la amenaza terrorista.As it may happen in a fight, there are usually two groups involved.The two groups implied here are those who provoke terrorism, and those who defend themselves against it.The data indicates that certain actions are associated with terrorism.Others are associated with those who try to end it and are represented by the citizens of Spain and the Government.In this sense, the following verb metaphor keywords are always associated to terrorism: amenaza, destruir, eliminar, and golpear.It is also interesting to notice that verb metaphor keywords such as desterrar can be part of two source domains, the one of fight, but also of motion.
[In order to be avoided, wars need to be exiled, in first place, from the mind and from the heart] (06/23/ 2004) (6) Desterrar la hipocresía es también capital para obtener la victoria en la lucha contra el terror.[To exile hypocrisy is also essential to obtain the victory in the fight against the terror] (03/10/2005) The metaphor keyword desterrar is used metaphorically to evoke the notion of exile.This lexical choice is particularly appealing because desterrar implies a movement; a forced removal of an individual from one place to another.The direct object of the verb desterrar does not refer to an individual, but to war and hypocrisy.Besides, the exile is not made from a country to another place, but from the mind and from the heart.Example (5) suggests that in order to avoid wars, we need to remove the idea of having a war from our minds as well as from our hearts.Zapatero emphasizes here once again the power of the mind in politics as well as his peaceful political ideology.Contrasting with the negative representation of terrorism as enemy, Zapatero presents the positive notion of the hero and the winner that will end up with it: Madrid, as a metonymy that stands for the citizens of the capital of Spain, is also described as having the following features: courage, solidarity, and heroism.
(7) Ante el terror, Madrid ha dado ejemplo de coraje, de solidaridad y de heroísmo.Y con Madrid, toda España.[In the presence of terror, Madrid has been an example of courage, solidarity, and heroism.And with Madrid, all Spain] (04/16/2000) In example ( 7), Madrid is also described as having the following features: courage, solidarity, and heroism.The conceptual metaphor can be realized as: MADRID IS A HERO.In fact, in the second part of the example, the idea of hero is extended to the whole country, Spain: SPAIN IS A HERO.In this respect, a conceptual key can be formulated as follows: SOCIETY IS A HERO.
Features that define entities such as Spain, Spain's society, and Madrid are carefully and consciously selected by Zapatero.They all portray Spain with a positive connotation; this is, as a hero.This contrasts with the characterization of terrorism, which is depicted as a villain and as an enemy.
In addition to the positive image of Madrid, Spain, and society, Zapatero chooses to define himself metaphorically with a recurring linguistic choice: un militante.This noun denotes a different meaning than militar.Militant creates a symbolic contrast since its etymology clearly comes from the context of militia, in which people serve for a cause, but in an aggressive and physical manner.Zapatero portrays himself as the defender of democratic values: (8) […] voy a ser un militante para la defensa de los principios democráticos en la lucha contra el terrorismo, un militante activo.[I am going to be a militant for the defense of democratic principles in the fight against terrorism, an active militant] (07/16/ 2004) In example ( 8), the term militante implies several aspects: to actively serve in a cause which is usually associated with war or militia; it implies discipline, commitment, and no fear.By describing himself as a militante, he portrays himself to the general public as an active person that serves to end terrorism pacifically.The cause he fights is terrorism.However, he fights it peacefully, rationally, and with dialogue; not with a war.Therefore, the field where he fights is not a battlefield, but a political one.Zapatero stated the following with respect to the war in Iraq: Dijimos también que la guerra era mucho más fácil de ganar que la paz.La paz es la tarea; una tarea que exige más valentía, más determinación y más heroísmo que la guerra.Por eso las tropas españolas regresaron de Iraq [We also said that war is much easier to win than peace.Peace is a task.A task that demands more boldness, more determination, and more heroism than war] (09/21/2004) This extract shows his active militant attitude, which is for peace, and neither for war nor physical violence.
As mentioned previously, terrorism and those entities that are against it, form the two major focuses of the conceptualization.However, the aspect of terrorism that appears most dominant in Zapatero's discourse is how to solve the conflict.The data illustrates that Zapatero's rhetoric is bellicose in the sense that he often uses verbiage that evokes the notion of fight.This includes metaphor keywords such as lucha, luchar, batalla, combate, combatir, derrota, prisionero, etc.This can be exemplified with the following metaphorical instances: Particularly noteworthy in Zapatero's discourse is that he does not use the term guerra to address terrorism.The phrase la guerra contra el terrorismo is never found in the data.This is because Zapatero does not believe in a physical war or violence to solve the problem, and he states this repeatedly and clearly in his political speeches: "Creo firmemente que para combatir el terrorismo el camino no es la guerra convencional".[I firmly believe that conventional war is not the way to combat terrorism] (09/07/2004) This conscious choice helps to create and enforce a stronger bond between himself and the general public that demonstrated and mobilized massively multiple times against the Iraq war.By doing this, he is also drawing a distinction with the previous president José María Aznar from the opposition party, who supported the war in Iraq.In addition, Zapatero also draws a distinction with previous American president George Bush.While the expression the war against terrorism characterized Bush's discourse, the fight against terrorism identifies Zapatero's political ideology.Beer and De Landtscheer (2004: 30) indicate that metaphors may suggest new solutions to long-standing political conflicts.In this way, the pervasiveness of Fight Metaphors in the corpus reveals that Zapatero's use of fight reveals a non-violent ideology, through a moral, peaceful, and rational action.His fight is a peaceful action against terrorism.Here are some metaphorical instances that illustrate his fight: (13) […] abordar una lucha inteligente, acertada y unitaria contra el terrorismo.[to undertake an intelligent, well-aimed, and unitary fight against terrorism] (07/16/ 2004) In example ( 13), the adjectives that describe Zapatero's fight (inteligente, acertada, unitaria) indicate that the fight shows maturity, rationality, good judgment, and is based on a unanimous consensus on the public: (14) La convicción de que es así, desde la legalidad, y sólo así, es cómo se gana el combate al terrorismo.[The conviction that it is like this, from legality, and only in this way, is how to win the combat with terrorism] (09/21/2004) Example ( 14) emphasizes that the fight, portrayed in this case as a combat, will only be won legally.The metaphor keyword combate depicts the political ground as a battlefield again with terrorism as the cause of this battle.The difference with a physical battle is that the weapons used in this battle are not like the real ones, but they represent the democratic means like legality and laws.Thus, this metaphor highlights the idea that people that follow the democratic laws will win this fight.
(15) […] esa unión (referring to the so called agreement Pacto por las Libertades y contra el Terrorismo) es una de las armas más eficaces para conseguir ese objetivo.[this union is one of the most efficient weapons to reach this goal] (01/15/2007) Example (15) presents a metaphorical expression in which the union is portrayed metaphorically as one of the most efficient weapons.The conceptual metaphor that can be formulated here is: UNITY IS A WEAPON.Once again, this shows Zapatero's political way of fighting terrorism, not with real weapons, but with democratic ones.Zapatero's fight is a moral and democratic one because it has its foundation in moral and democratic values such as freedom, legality, and democracy.
(16) La lucha contra el terrorismo nos exige desarrollar un armazón moral, intelectual, jurídico y policial que fortalezca la legitimidad de nuestros esfuerzos.[The fight against terrorism demands us to develop a moral, intelectual, juridic, and police-like shield] (03/10/2005) Example ( 16) presents an interesting metaphorical instance.The noun metaphor keyword armazón indicates the type of protection needed to fight against terrorism.This protection is expressed through the image of a shield, which is moral, intellectual, and juridic.Zapatero portrays the fight against terrorism as a collective one.This can be seen in example ( 17) with the verbs tomamos and perdimos, which correspond to the second person plural (nosotros).Besides, the linguistic choice of colectivo shows that the fear is not the fear of an individual, but a collective fear.This highlights again that the fight is the fight of a common large group, that is, the citizens of Spain.This also helps to construct and maintain the sense of unity and community among citizens, but also the bond with the government: Zapatero describes the fight against terrorism as a battle that can be won, and the demonstrative adjective nuestra in example ( 17), and nuestro in ( 18), emphasize the bond with the general public.The noun mentalidad refers to the way of thinking that characterizes an individual, a society, or even a generation.Here the term mentalidades refers to different ways of thinking, that is, the ones that are in favor and against terrorism.This example shows clearly that the fight is not a physical or territorial one, but an ideological one.th Zapatero highlights the idea that every terrorist attack instead of provoking fear in the citizens has the opposite effect.It has made citizens reaffirm their values and their attitudes.Zapatero's rhetoric strategy indicates that he hits back with his words.The notion of fight does not only indicate his political ideology, but it can also be implicitly perceived in his argumentative rhetoric, this is, the way he fights back with words in his political argumentations.Zapatero also emphasizes that it is the memory of the victims which reinforces Spain's citizens to strongly resist the menace of terror.The notion of resistance is again not a physical one but a psychological one.Zapatero emphasizes the power of the mind.He mentions how powerful the mind can be when used for the wrong reasons like terrorism, fanaticism, or extremism.
One final example in this section indicates that Zapatero does not draw a distinction in the way he conceptualizes national or international terrorism.Both types of terrorism are conceptualized in the same way since their ultimate goal is to kill and hurt people.
[to guarantee security in the fight against terrorism, at a national and international level] (01/10/2006) Example (20) indicates that terrorism, whether at national or international level, needs to be fought.By doing this, Zapatero emphasizes the idea of a common fight to end up with any kind of terrorism.This section has shown that by exploring Zapatero's metaphorical bellicose language, it is possible to identify how he constructs the representation of terrorism at different levels: cognitive, rhetorical, and ideology.The data has indicated how Zapatero uses the metaphorical notion of the battlefield to present the political issue of terrorism.The notion of the battlefield allows him to represent terrorism in terms of military strategies, using terms such as atacar, amenaza, combate, combatir, lucha, luchar, adversario, enemigo, etc.In this sense, the weapons used in this battle are not real physical ones, but words, dialogue, legality, tolerance, etc.This battlefield scenario allows Zapatero to represent several aspects: first, the presentation of terrorism as a real and physical international menace that has killed and hurt people.Terrorism is conceptualized as a person who threatens, attacks, combats, fights, battles, provokes damage, and causes destruction and death; second, Zapatero presents the notion of the hero and the winner to emphasize democratic and moral values; third, this battlefield scenario allows him to promote his political ideology and his call for peaceful political action to solve this problem.Zapatero uses all this bellicose terminology in a metaphoric way to present his pro-peace ideology and his rejection to terrorism with moral values such as freedom, tolerance, respect, and democratic beliefs.Besides, his bellicose rhetoric used in his speeches supports his political ideology, and at the same time it also shows his way of fighting back with words, with dialogue, not killing people and causing casualties.What is also interesting in Zapatero's speeches is that he is very systematic in the use of some metaphorical expressions, and this is the case of the metaphorical expression la lucha contra el terrorismo, which appears 63 times out of 81 times of the metaphor keyword lucha.

Conclusions
The analysis of Zapatero's political speeches has shown that the notion of fight is predominantly used in his discourse on terrorism.Results of this investigation indicate that during a three-year period Zapatero consistently refers to aspects of terrorism invoking the concept of fight and uses the conceptual framework of fight to present how he envisions the problem of terrorism.This framework, full of bellicose language, evokes the battlefield scenario, where two fronts are being fought.The data shows that fight metaphors allow Zapatero to position the Government and citizens as the victims as well as heroes, fighting against terrorism and terrorists as the enemies.The metaphors reveal that Zapatero concentrates on three aspects: terrorism and terrorists, those who oppose terrorism (Government and citizens), and how to solve the problem of terrorism.These three aspects were conceptually represented as: TERRORISM IS THE ENEMY, SOCIETY IS A HERO, and TERRORISM IS A FIGHT.Interestingly, TERRORISM IS A FIGHT appeared to be the most dominant in his discourse, and it was mainly expressed as la lucha contra el terrorismo.This reveals his determination of solving the problem that has lasted for more than forty years in Spain.Of particular interest is to notice that while George Bush's discourse was characterized by the war against terrorism, the fight against terrorism is predominant in Zapatero's political rhetoric.
The arguments produced in the discussion show why Fight Metaphors are so prominent in Zapatero's discourse.They served indeed several functions in the discourse on terrorism: First, the rhetorical function, in which Zapatero's bellicose verbiage stimulates the citizens to be active participants.Second, the cognitive function through the conceptual system of fight.Fight Metaphors allow Zapatero to create a battlefield scenario to metaphorically present his political vision on terrorism.He presents terrorism as a common enemy both nationally and internationally.Third, the ideological function, through which Zapatero transmits his anti-terrorism political agenda and political ideology to the public.Despite his bellicose verbiage, the metaphorical language never contradicted his political ideology.In essence, his fight always aims to appease people in a peaceful way.For future research, it would be interesting to compare how left-wing and right-wing discourse conceptualize terrorism differently, and how this reflects each political ideology.In addition to this, it would be interesting to analyze how the notion of fight is used to conceptualize other social issues in Zapatero's discourse.

( 17 )
El día en que tomamos conciencia de nuestra fuerza y perdimos el miedo colectivo empezamos a ganar nuestra batalla.[The day we became aware of our strenght and lost our collective fear, we started to win our battle] (12/13/2004) (18) En nuestro esfuerzo por ganar la batalla de las mentalidades.[In our effort to win the battle of the mentalities] (09/15/2005)

golpe nos ha reafirmado en nuestros valores.
The following conceptual metaphor can be realized: POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES ARE BATTLES.La memoria de las víctimas da sentido a nuestra resistencia frente al terror y redobla el valor de nuestra libertad.[Every hit has reasserted our values.The memory of the victims gives sense to our resistance to terror and redoubles the value of our freedom] (12/13/2004) Example (19) includes metaphors that emphasize the boldness and the importance of moral values of the citizens of Spain.The metaphorical instance Cada golpe nos ha reafirmado en nuestros valores indicates the courageous attitude of the citizens after a terrorist attack.The contextual meaning of the keyword golpe refers to the March 11 terrorist attack in Madrid.