LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL TRICKS IN MANIPULATIVE POLITICAL DISCOURSE
Abstract
Political discourse defined by linguists as persuasive discourse effectively employs the ability of language to communicate and give shape to reality. Socrates and Aristotle were well aware of the power of language to distort perception and influence behavior, and thus be a tool, or weapon, for achieving the speaker’s goals. Based on principles worked out by Classical rhetoricians modern rhetoric is revived on a new basis synthesizing theoretical data of pragmatics, psycholinguistics and communication theory. As a result, the emphasis is laid not upon sharing knowledge but rather upon forming the opinion. Language of politics nowadays tends to be ambiguous, indefinite and vague. Political discourse provides contexts in which the speaker doesn’t mean exactly what the words literally mean. That is, the speaker’s denotation differs from the semantic meaning. Political discourse defined by linguists as persuasive discourse effectively employs the gift of language to communicate and give profile to reality. Politicians use a wide range of language means to manipulate the electorate: euphemisms, jargon, gobbledygook, inflated language, simplified or overcomplicated syntax. Politics seems to be the realm of doublespeak which is presented as a heterogeneous phenomenon providing cloudy vagueness of political language. The influence on addressee’s perception is conveyed due to manipulative potential of language. The enormous power is in the meaning of the words, what they mean to the human being who hears them. Far more than simple communication, truth, falsehood and the infinite shades between them, words have the power to manipulate other people’s thinking and behavior. On grammatical level one of the characteristic traits of political discourse (especially political slogans) is the use of verbless sentences. Verbless sentences in the English language may be viewed in the context of nominalization trend. It must be noted that verbless sentences in the analytical English language break all grammatical norms. Hence designed to mislead, Doublespeak is presented as a heterogeneous phenomenon providing cloudy vagueness of political language.
References
2. Ferguson Сh. Absence of Copula and the Notion of Simplicity. Pidginization and Creolisation of Languages. London, 1971. P. 141–150.
3. Fowler R. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge, 1991. 272 р.
4. Galperin I. R. Stylistics. Moscow : High School, 1981. 316 p.
5. Hoggart S. Meaningless Metaphors Cloak an Underlying Sincerity, 2004 URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul/17/labour.politics on 28.02.2011
6. Keith Al. Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2007. 303 p.
7. Lakoff R. Persuasive Discourse and Ordinary Conversation, with Examples of Advertising. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. New York : Prentice Hall, 1982. P. 27–34.
8. Lutz W. The New Doublespeak. Why No One Knows What Anyone is Saying Anymore. New York : Harper Perennial, 1990.
9. Orwell G. Politics and the English Language URL: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit on 28.02.2011