Roma Tre
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2013/14
Handout #6
LANGUAGE OF POLITICS: Introduction
Political Discourse and Genres
POLITICAL DISCOURSE is “concerned with formal/informal political contexts and
political actors… with politicians, political institutions, governments, political
media, and political supporters operating in political environments to achieve
political goals” (Wilson 2001: 398).
More specifically, it refers to “the use of language to do the business of politics and
includes persuasive rhetoric, the use of implied meaning, the use of
euphemisms, the exclusion of references to undesirable realities, the use of
language to rouse political emotions, and the like” (Chilton 2008: 226).
POLITICAL TEXTS are any texts that fulfil political functions (see below) and they
include a number of different GENRES (see text box below): such as bilateral and
multilateral treaties, speeches made during an election campaign or at a political
party congress, a contribution of a member an MP or congressman to a debate,
editorial, reports or commentaries in newspapers, a press conference, a
politicians memoirs (Schäffner 1997) as well as slogans, advertisements, leaflets used
in electoral campaigns, home pages and blogs, special TV and radio programmes
(Meet the Press, BBC Parliament), fictional films and TV shows about politics or
political actors (JFK, The West Wing), etc.
GENRES are part of sociologically determined communicative activities.
They are conventional or typical combinations of contextual (situational),
communicative-functional, and structural (grammatical and thematic
features). In the analysis of political discourse (as in any discourse) it is
important to understand “the role which particular genres play in the
exercise of power and influence, and in part their role in the very definition
of politics and political institutions” (Chilton & Schäffner 2002: 20-21).
Political texts are the result of “politics” because they are defined by history and
culture. They perform different functions on the basis of different political actions
and related to the political world (e.g., political activities, political ideas, political
relations, etc.). These texts are almost always meant for a wider public and are
embedded in a wider political discourse (INTERTEXTUALITY), so that they can
display different degrees of CULTURE-BOUNDEDNESS. For translation purposes, it
is important to remember that, on the one hand, texts can reflect in a specific way
the social context and the historic period of their production (e.g., policy
statements of a particular government). On the other hand, there are multilingual
but equally authoritative texts (such as documents from the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE], UN, EU) which reflect specific production
conditions and internationalization process (Schäffner 1997).
With its interest in ideology, power, dominance, social and institutional practice
Critical Discourse Analysis naturally lends itself to the study of political discourse.
 “Political differences have been constituted as differences in language, [and]
political struggles have always been partly struggles over the dominant language”
(Fairclough 2000: 3)
 The way people talk about themselves and others, both positively and negatively,
reflect deeply ingrained power relations, and the texts they produce can serve to
sustain or change ideologies (Fairclough 2003: 9).
 Ideology “can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between …
social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities
through the ways in which they represent things and position people”
(Fairclough & Wodak 1997: 258).
Some Important Features of Political Language
1.
2.
3.
use of euphemism or euphemizing strategies
o to soften or change perception of reality;
o to legitimise or delegitimize someone or something
a particular ideology (or indexicality) can be expressed through lexical choice,
accent, forms of address, etc.) which always signal some political distinction
metaphorical reasoning is common in political discourse (as is the use of other
rhetorical tropes such as metonymy and synecdoche)
Roma Tre
LM1
a.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
for example, in the so-called war on terrorism “the meaning of
terrorism depends on who you are and what your political ideology is,
and include the meaning that makes it possible to use “terrorist” to
refer to states as well as to sub-state actors” [Chilton 2008: 237]
most political texts are highly culture-bound: “with references to a wide range
of cultural patterns of the society in question, including aspects of its economic,
political and legal life, require a lot of background knowledge for a coherent
interpretation.” [Schäffner 1997: 133]
b. many political texts make use of intertextuality
c. in analyzing any speech event it is important to consider four different
levels of context [Wodak 2009: 586]:
i. the immediate text-internal co-text;
ii. the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between
texts, genres and discourses;
iii. extralinguistic
social/sociological
variables
and
institutional frames of a specific ‘context of situation’;
iv. the broader sociopolitical and historical contexts, which
the discursive practices are embedded in and related to.
use of formulaic utterances or institutionalized procedures (e.g., I beg to
move…) in specific situations (Parliamentary discussions, speeches, question &
answer sessions, debates, etc.)
modal forms are used strategically by politicians to remain vague, or frame
claims for truth, confidence, trust, credibility and legitimization.
use of informal language to change the tone or to stress the manner (such as
an apparent closer relation between speaker and public)
prominent use of pronouns to reflect personal and ideological points of view
(creating closeness, distance, a sense of responsibility, group identity, coalitions,
parties, etc.)
d. pronouns can indicate (or obscure) collectivity and individuality, or
they can be used for (positive) ‘self’ or (negative) ‘other’ referencing or
as a way to polarize representations of in-groups and out groups.
e. Most important pronominal distinctions are I vs. we, inclusive vs.
exclusive-we, and us vs. them. The use of I/we is clearly marked
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2013/14
Handout #6
depending on how much responsibility the speaker wants to claim: I is
used “to gain the people’s allegiance”, while we is often used to evade
complete responsibility (Wilson 1990: 50). Third-person pronouns can
be used for distance, a relation of contrast and other referencing from
the so-called ‘deictic centre’.
9. the naming of politicians or other social actors by linguistic means
(nomination)
10. the framing of questions to stress the availability of alternative models (in a
democracy)
11. repetition and other rhetorical means to reinforce a message
*REQUIRED READING: Wodak, R. 2009. “Language and Politics”. In Culpeper et al.
English Language: Description, Variation and Context. London: Palgrave. 576593.
SUPPLEMENTARY READING:
*Chilton, Paul. 2008. “Political Terminology”. In: Wodak and Koller (eds.) Handbook of
Communication in the Public Sphere”. New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
*Chilton, Paul & Schäffner, C. 2002. “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis
of political discourse”. In: Chilton and Schäffner (eds.) Politics as Text and Talk
Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-41.
Fairclough, Norman. 2000. New Labour, New Language. London: Routledge.
*Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research.
Oxon & New York. Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak 1997: ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’. Teun van Dijk,
Ed. Discourse as Social Interaction 2. London: Sage. 258-84.
*Wilson, John. 2001. “Political Discourse.” In: Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen &
Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
*Schäffner, Christina. 1997. “Strategies of Translating Political Texts.” In Anna Trosborg
(Ed.) Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
* sources available in the LUSPIO library.
Roma Tre
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2013/14
Handout #6
Comment on the use of the underlined items in the two examples (from GW Bush)
Example 1*: GW Bush’s Address after 9/11 Attacks
[from Cabinet Room following Cabinet Meeting, 12 September 2001]
I just completed a meeting with our national security team,
forever. This enemy attacked not just our people but all
and we've received the latest intelligence updates. The
freedom-loving people everywhere in the world.
deliberate and deadly attacks, which were carried out
yesterday against our country, were more than acts of terror.
The United States of America will use all our resources to
They were acts of war. This will require our country to unite
conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be
in steadfast determination and resolve. Freedom and
patient. We'll be focused, and we will be steadfast in our
democracy are under attack. The American people need to
determination. This battle will take time and resolve, but make
know we're facing a different enemy than we have ever
no mistake about it, we will win. The federal government and
faced. This enemy hides in shadows and has no regard for
all our agencies are conducting business, but it is not
human life. This is an enemy who preys on innocent and
business as usual. We are operating on heightened security
unsuspecting people, then runs for cover, but it won't be
alert. America is going forward, and as we do so, we must
able to run for cover forever. This is an enemy that tries to
remain keenly aware of the threats to our country.
hide, but it won't be able to hide forever. This is an enemy
that thinks its harbors are safe, but they won't be safe
*Example from Wodak 2009: 584 and http://www.americanrhetoric.com/
Roma Tre
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2013/14
Handout #6
Example 2: GW Bush on Saddam Hussein’s Capture
[delivered on 14 December 2003 from the Cabinet Room]
Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30
p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured
Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside
the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties.
And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he
denied to millions.
The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It
marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and
killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible
for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt
power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi
citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event
brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the
secret police are gone forever.
And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You
will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All
Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side.
The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals -sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and
for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.
In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful
day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject
violence and build a new Iraq.
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and
women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the
superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's
footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with
skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and
women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the
hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to
bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work
continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I
thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.
I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam
Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face
terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept
the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are
a direct threat to the American people, and they will be
defeated.
We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and
focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war
on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture,
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by
our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of
liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this
war is won.
May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America.
Thank you.