The Role of Euphemistic Strategies in Manipulation of Realities and Persuasion in Political Speeches
الموضوعات :Esmaeil Azizi 1 , Abdolhossein Ahmadi 2 , Mohammad Bavali 3
1 - Department of English, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Department of English, Larestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lar, Iran
3 - Department of English, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Euphemism, Political discourse, Iranian politicians, American politicians,
ملخص المقالة :
This study investigates the role of euphemistic strategies in the manipulation of realities and persuasion within political discourse, focusing on speeches by American and Iranian politicians during the 2013-2015 nuclear negotiations. Employing Van Dijk's socio-cognitive model, the research conducts a comparative discourse analysis to identify and categorize euphemistic expressions used to justify policies, address controversial issues, and influence public opinion. The analysis reveals distinct patterns in the use of euphemistic strategies, with American politicians, such as John Kerry, frequently employing polarization and burden/topos, while Iranian politicians, like Mohammad Javad Zarif, emphasize evidentiality and positive self-presentation. These differences reflect varying rhetorical styles and objectives, highlighting how euphemisms serve as tools for ideological manipulation and audience persuasion. The study underscores the importance of understanding euphemistic language in political communication, offering insights into the mechanisms of public perception shaping and the legitimization of political agendas. By comparing English and Persian political discourses, this research contributes to cross-cultural discourse analysis and enhances critical discourse awareness, equipping audiences to deconstruct political rhetoric and recognize underlying persuasive techniques.
Allan, K. & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and Dysphemism. Language Used as Shield and Weapon. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Badakhshan, E. & Mousavi, S. (2013). A Linguistic Analysis of Euphemism in Persian. Language Related Research, 5(1), 1-27.
Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). "Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews" Text & Talk, 26(1), 3-37. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
Burridge, K. (2012). Euphemism and language change. The sixth and seventh ages. Lexis. E-Journal in English Lexicology, 7, 65–92.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Chilton, P., A. & Schäffner, C., (1997). Discourse and politics. In Van Dijk, Teun A. (Eds.) Discourse in social interaction (pp. 206- 230). London: SAGE.
Crespo-Fernández, E. (2014). Euphemism and political discourse in the British regional press. Brno Studies in English, 40 (1), 5-26.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in transdisciplinary research. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Håkansson, J. (2012). The Use of Personal Pronouns in Political Speeches: A comparative study of the pronominal choices of two American presidents.
Jaganegara, H., & Wijana, I. D. P. (2023). Euphemism roles as a disguise tool in political texts: A case study of Tempo online political articles. SULUK: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Dan Budaya, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.15642/suluk.2023.5.1.1-19
Ilić, M. B. & Radulović., M. (2014). Marginalizing commitment: syntactic euphemisms in political speeches. Linguistics and Literature, 12(1), 25 – 41.
Kameneva, V. A., & Rabkina, N. V. (2020). Euphemization of political discourse with elected and derived political power. The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.05.257
Lutz, W. (1990). The world of doublespeak. USA Today, 119 (2544), 34-36.
Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. (2018). The sociolinguistics of hip-hop as critical conscience: Dissatisfaction and dissent. Palgrave MacMillan.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4 (2), 249–283.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? In Blommaert, Jan and Chris Bulcaen (Eds.), Political Linguistics (pp. 11- 52). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2004). Politics, ideology and discourse. Retrieved Febuary 20, 2008 from http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun.html.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Van Dijk TA. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2015). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–22). London: Sage.
Yafarova, G. H. (2015). Euphemisms as semantic shifts in the political discourse of German. Philological sciences. Quest of theory and practice., 10-1(52), 214–217.
Zhao, X. (2010). Study on the features of English political euphemism and its social functions. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 118 – 121.
