ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the “Text in conflict” by discussing rhetorical strategies employed in naming people involved in forced migration and by investigating naming preferences in the British newspaper The Times. It shows how naming choices produce ideation, which then perpetuates the particular conflict situation, and shows how casting light on naming choices and de-naturalising them may hold potential benefits for tackling conflict in the area of anti-migration discourse. The chapter considers how the assertion about the dialectical nature of naming has been addressed through both the components of discourse studies and corpus linguistics. It summarises the principle rhetorical and persuasive patterns that have been identified in how migrants are named in public discourse. These include the avoidance of legitimising terms, the construction of polarisation and blurring of categories. The chapter addresses why names matter and how the kinds of categorisation that are inherent in naming choices reflect and encourage conflict.
