1887
Volume 17, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Euphemism is a discursive strategy that politicians use to approach unsettling, embarrassing, or distasteful, i.e. taboo, topics without appearing inconsiderate to people’s concerns. Following a critical discourse-analytic approach to political language, this paper discusses the communicative functions that euphemism performs in the discourse of local and state politicians from New Jersey (USA) in a sample of language data excerpted from The Star-Ledger, the state’s largest newspaper. The analysis reveals that (metaphorical and non-metaphorical) euphemism constitutes a major strategy of self-protection and positive self-presentation for legislators which allows them – mostly by understatement, periphrasis, and metaphor – first, to refer to socially disadvantaged groups or address delicate subjects without sounding insensitive; second, to criticize their political opponents in a socially acceptable way; and third, to purposely conceal from the public unsettling or controversial topics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.17040.cre
2018-12-14
2019-08-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge
    2006Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511617881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bublitz, Wolfram
    2015 “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. InThe Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. byJenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig, 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110427561‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110427561-002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Burridge, Kate
    2012 “Euphemism and Language Change. The Sixth and Seven Ages”. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology7: 65–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cameron, Deborah
    2012Verbal Hygiene. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203123898
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123898 [Google Scholar]
  6. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2012 “Forensic Deliberations on ‘Purposeful Metaphor’”. Metaphor and the Social World2 (1): 1–21. doi:  10.1075/msw.2.1.01cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.2.1.01cha [Google Scholar]
  8. 2014Analysing Political Speeches. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑36833‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-36833-1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
    2002 “Introduction. Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse”. InPolitics in Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. byPeter Chilton, and Christina Schäffner, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi [Google Scholar]
  11. Cox, Jeremy L.
    2012 “Politics in Motion: Barack Obama’s Use of Movement Metaphors”. American Communication Journal14 (2): 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer
    2014 “Euphemism and Political Discourse in the British Regional Press”. Brno Studies in English40 (1): 5–26. doi:  10.5817/BSE2014‑1‑1
    https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2014-1-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Degani, Marta
    2015Framing the Rhetoric of a Leader: An Analysis of Obama’s Election Campaign Speeches. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137471598
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137471598 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grady, Joseph E.
    1997 “Theories are Buildings Revisited”. Cognitive Linguistics8 (4): 267–290. doi:  10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  15. Halmari, Helena
    2011 “Political Correctness, Euphemism and Language Change. The Case of ‘People First’”. Journal of Pragmatics43 (3): 828–840. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kahn, Paul
    1997The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2013 “Strategic Manoeuvring in the Political Rhetoric of Barack Obama”. Journal of Language and Politics12 (3): 357–377. doi:  10.1075/jlp.12.3.03kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.03kie [Google Scholar]
  18. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2006Language, Mind, and Culture. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Krzyżanowski, Michal
    2013 “Policy, Policy Communication and Discursive Shifts: Analysing EU Policy Discourses on Climate Change”. InAnalysing New Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap, and Urszula Okulska, 101–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/dapsac.50.05krz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.05krz [Google Scholar]
  20. Krzyżanowski, Michal, and Bernard Forchtner
    2016 “Theories and Concepts in Critical Discourse Studies: Facing Challenges, Moving beyond Foundations”. Discourse and Society7 (3): 253–261. doi:  10.1177/0957926516630900
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630900 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. doi:  10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lutz, William
    1987 “Doublespeak at Large”. English Today12: 21–24. doi:  10.1017/S0266078400003072
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400003072 [Google Scholar]
  24. Machin, David
    2013 “What is Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies?” Critical Discourse Studies10: 347–355. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2013.813770
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.813770 [Google Scholar]
  25. Musolff, Andreas
    2014 “The Metaphor of the ‘Body Politic’ across Languages and Cultures”. InCognitive Explorations into Metaphor and Metonymy, ed. byFrank Polzenhagen, Zoltán Kövecses, Stefanie Vogelbacher, and Sonjia Kleinke, 85–99. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016Political Metaphor Analysis. Discourse and Scenarios. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Okulska, Urszula, and Piotr Cap
    2010 “Analysis of Political Discourse: Landmarks, Challenges and Prospects”. InPerspectives in Political Discourse, ed. byUrszula Okulska, and Piotr Cap, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/dapsac.36.03oku
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.03oku [Google Scholar]
  28. Partington, Alan
    2003The Linguistics of Political Argument. The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London and New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203218259
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203218259 [Google Scholar]
  29. Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
    2015 “The Discourse-historical Approach (DHA)”. InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byRuth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Reyes, Antonio
    2014 “Bush, Obama: (In)formality as Persuasion in Political Discourse”. Journal of Language and Politics13 (3): 538–562. doi:  10.1075/jlp.13.3.08rey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.3.08rey [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J.
    2000 “The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy”. InMetaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, ed. byAntonio Barcelona, 109–132. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schubert, Christoph
    2014 “Cognitive Categorization and Prototypicality as Persuasive Strategies: Presidential Rhetoric in the USA”. Cognitive Perspectives on Political Discourse. Special Issue of Journal of Language and Politics13 (2): 313–335. doi:  10.1075/jlp.13.2.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.06sch [Google Scholar]
  33. Shin, Yongjun
    2016 “Connecting Political Communication with Urban Politics: A Bourdieusian Framework”. International Journal of Communication10: 508–529.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1997 “What is Political Discourse Analysis?” InPolitical Linguistics, ed. byJan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 11–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2006 “Politics, Ideology, and Discourse”. InElsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. byRuth Wodak, 728–740. London: Elsevier. doi:  10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00722‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00722-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wilson, John
    2001 “Political Discourse”. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 398–416. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    2015 “Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology”. InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byRuth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–22. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Yu, Ning
    2008 “Metaphor from Body and Culture”. InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. byRaymond W. Gibbs, 247–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CB09780511816802.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511816802.016 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zarefsky, David
    (ed) 2014Political Argumentation in the United States. Historical and Contemporary Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.17040.cre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.17040.cre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual metaphor , euphemism , face , PC language and political discourse
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error