Language and Politics

Relationship Between Language and Politics

The relationship between language and politics falls within the study of language and power, which recognises how others can use language to make us act, feel, or think in certain ways without force.

According to Wareing (1991), there are two main types of power; instrumental and influential.¹

• Instrumental power = authoritative power, e.g., the Queen has authoritative power over the United Kingdom; she doesn't need to convince anyone of her power.

• Influential power = When individuals or organisations try to gain power over others by influencing their thoughts and behaviours. E.g. advertising companies try to gain power over people's buying habits by influencing their thoughts.

Politics can be considered both instrumental and influential power. However, when looking at individual or small groups of politicians and their language use (e.g. giving speeches), we usually consider this a type of influential power. This is because, although we are expected to abide by the laws politicians set, we have a choice over who we vote for and which policies.

Politicians, therefore, utilise language in such a way to gain more influential power for themselves and their affiliated parties.

Let's take a look at some times and places when politicians may use the English language to gain power and some common techniques used.

Politics and the English language

One of the most common places we see politicians using language techniques is in speeches. Speeches are often persuasive and engaging spoken texts used to influence and persuade the masses into voting a certain way or adopting certain political and societal values.

Politicians may also utilise language to gain influential power when making public appearances, such as appearing on the TV (e.g. the News), when talking to journalists, and when answering members of the public's questions.

A final consideration is the concept of parliamentary speech, the language politicians use when talking to each other. The use of parliamentary speech falls within the category of pragmatics. We will cover this in full detail later.

Politics and language techniques

Now we have a good idea of the relationship between language, politics, and power, and when politicians may utilise language to gain influential power. Let's look at some well-known language techniques used to influence others.

When analysing political speeches and politician's use of the English language, we can look out for the following language techniques:

• Political rhetoric

• Pragmatics

• Forms of address

• Political spin

Let's look at these in more detail.

Political rhetoric

Political rhetoric is the name given to the frequent persuasive language techniques used by politicians. The term rhetoric is used to describe the art of persuasive speaking or writing and comes from the Greek rhetor, meaning 'professional speaker'.

Common features of political rhetoric with examples are laid out in the table below:

Fig. 1 - Politicians often use imperative sentences.

How many of the previous techniques can you see in this 2017 speech extract from then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

In this speech, we can see;

• Repetition - 'Ready to tackle inequality, ready to rebuild our NHS, ready to give opportunities to young people [...]'
• Allusion - 'They're certainly not strong, and they're definitely not stable.' (alluding to Theresa May's 2017 political slogan.
• Rhetorical question - 'Theresa May told voters they faced the threat of a "coalition of chaos. Remember that?'
• List of three - 'Phillip Hammond and Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and David Davis.'
• Hyperbole - 'They're hanging on by their fingertips'

Pragmatics

The linguist David Crystal suggested that the standard maxims of conversation (these are Grice's maxims) don't necessarily apply in parliamentary speech.

Let's remind ourselves of the conversational maxims;

• Maxim of quantity - individuals will give as much information as needed

• Maxim of quality - individuals will only say things they believe to be true

• Maxim of relevance - individuals will only give relevant information

• Maxim of manner - individuals will be clear, concise, and avoid ambiguity

According to Crystal, politicians don't follow the maxims in the same way others do as they have other motives than maintaining a successful conversation, i.e. influencing others. This means that politicians often do not assume that other politicians are telling the truth, are only giving relevant information, or are avoiding ambiguity.

Phatic tokens

Another technique politicians use is phatic tokens; these are socio-pragmatic parts of speech used to build social bonds and solidarity. Examples of phatic tokens include small talk (e.g. nice weather today), greetings (e.g. nice to see you), and compliments (e.g. you look lovely today).

Pay attention to the beginning of political speeches. See if you notice how many start with phatic tokens.

Forms of address

The term 'forms of address' refers to the word, title, or name we use to talk to or about other people. In speeches, it is very common for politicians to use personal pronouns, such as I, we, they, and you as a way of building rapport and a sense of familiarity with the listeners.

Synthetic personalisation

The theorist and discourse analyst Norman Fairclough introduced the concept of synthetic personalisation in 1989 to explain how people in positions of power, such as politicians, address mass audiences as if they were individuals through inclusive language. By using personal pronouns and directly addressing the listener, politicians are able to create a sense of friendship between themselves and the masses and build trust.

Political spin

Political spin is a fairly recent term, and it is used to describe a type of propaganda politicians use to present their desired interpretation of a fact/situation rather than explicitly stating the truth. If you've ever seen an uncomfortable interview between a politician and a journalist, it's likely you've witnessed political spin.

Common techniques of political spin include;

• Prevarication (avoiding the question)

• Mispresenting facts

• Misleading information

• Withholding information

• Repetition

• Tautology (saying the same thing but with different words)

George Orwell: Language and Politics

'Language and politics' is a highly influential essay written by the British author George Orwell in 1946. In his essay, Orwell criticises the language used by politicians, stating it is lazy and relies on 'stock phrases' rather than any meaningful discourse.

In 'Language and politics', Orwell lists five examples of what he considers the worst examples of poor political writing. They are;

• Lack of precision - The meaning of what is being said hasn't been successfully communicated. Either the speaker failed to express themselves properly or were speaking for the sake of speaking and didn't really care about the meaning.

• Dying metaphors - These are metaphors that have been used so many times they have lost their original meaning and impact. Orwell suggests lazy writers use dying metaphors, such as 'no axe to grind', without care for their actual meaning.

• Verbal false limbs - When long, extended, and vague phrases are used in place of concise language.

• Pretentious diction - The use of complex or Latinate words (words deriving from Latin, e.g. ameliorate) to make opinions sound more authoritative.

• Meaningless words - Orwell suggested that many words used in politics get 'thrown around' so often they have lost their meaning. He cites examples such as fascism and human.

Fig. 2 - George Orwell wrote a lot about the English language and politics.

Language and Politics Example

Here is a political speech from 1988 given by then Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher. The speech was given before the Church of Scotland general assembly.

Take a read before we look at how to analyse a speech like this.

How to analyse a political speech

In your exams and essays, you may be expected to analyse a political speech much like the one above. Here are some tips on how to do so and an example analysis of the above speech.

First, consider;

• The whole speech - who is addressing who and what are they trying to achieve?

• The approach - is it an informative speech, a persuasive speech, an emotive speech etc.?

• Historical context and allusion - is the speech referencing a moment/person/event in the past?

• Does the speaker share a sense of their personal life? - do they provide personal anecdotes?

• Use of political rhetoric - which techniques from the above table are used and why?

• Form of address - how is the speaker addressing the audience?

• What has been omitted? - is the speaker deliberately omitting certain information or perspectives? Are they putting a 'spin' on what they're saying?

So, what can we say about Thatcher's 1988 speech;