ABSTRACT
In this epigraph, Sandra Stein is quoting a phrase used by teachers in talking about their working conditions in schools implementing Title I of the US federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, originally passed in 1965 and subsequently reauthorised until it was replaced by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Why did those teachers feel it necessary to draw on a military metaphor – ‘combat pay’ is the additional money, on top of basic salary, earned by soldiers at war – in talking about their desired income? Was the metaphor ‘purely’ descriptive – some ‘doily’ adorning ‘normal’ language that could be removed with no loss of meaning, indeed, perhaps even making the meaning clearer and less ambiguous? Or did it serve some other purpose in daily conversation?
