In this paper I examine the paradoxical role of language in conflict situations. Support the war and negotiation belong to a game of speech acts structured by a double metonymic and metaphorical relationship. That metaphorical relationship between both conceptualizes negotiation as a condensed analogy of war, metonymy exposed negotiation as its counterpart. That while veiled metaphor allows military aspects identify the statements and speeches of the armed actors, the metonymic relationship extends the argumentative function as one with the power play. Also argue that language can operate as an extended form of civil war or, on the contrary, as is desirable, can shape a political expression of it. What I think is not identical.
