MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES

Mgr. Pavel Reich

Doublespeak in Televised Political Debates

Ph.D. dissertation

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc.

2013

I hereby declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc. for her guidance, encouragement, motivation during my dissertation writing, valuable advice, and helpful suggestions that she gave me. I am also grateful to prof. PhDr. Ludmila Urbanová, CSc. for her interest in my work and kind advice. Furthermore, I am indebted to Cathy Niestroj, M.A. for her invaluable help, comments, and for proofreading this work. Finally, I would like to express my special thanks to my family and friends for their help, support, and patience. Contents

List of Graphs ...... 1

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2

1.1 Definitions of Doublespeak ...... 3

1.2 Historical Overview ...... 4

1.3 Aims of the Analysis ...... 5

1.4 Object of the Analysis ...... 7

2 LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT ...... 12

2.1 George Orwell ...... 14

2.1.1 Politics and the English Language ...... 14 2.1.2 Nineteen Eighty-Four ...... 16 2.1.3 Orwellian Linguistics ...... 19

3 LANGUAGE AS A MEANS OF THOUGHT CONTROL ...... 23

3.1 Doublespeak ...... 23

3.1.1 Basic Division by Lutz ...... 23 3.1.2 Manipulation of Communication According to Rank and Hahn ...... 24 3.1.3 Political Jargon ...... 27

3.2 Loaded Language and Control through Language ...... 29

3.2.1 Loaded Vocabulary ...... 30 3.2.2 Loaded Syntax ...... 31 3.2.3 Code Switching ...... 32

3.3 Division of Doublespeak ...... 33

4 LEXICAL DOUBLESPEAK ...... 36

4.1 Kinds of Lexical Meaning ...... 36

4.2 Expressivity, Evaluation, and Evaluativeness ...... 39

4.3 Types of Meaning in Relation to Doublespeak ...... 41

4.4 Hidden Bias ...... 44

4.4.1 Introduction ...... 44 4.4.2 Hidden Bias in the Debates ...... 46 4.4.2.1 Success in Iraq ...... 48 4.4.2.2 Staying or Withdrawing from Iraq ...... 55 4.4.2.3 Enemies ...... 66 4.4.2.4 Foreign Policy ...... 70 4.4.2.5 Direction of Politics ...... 76 4.4.2.6 Patriotism ...... 85 4.4.2.7 Co-workers and Candidates‘ Background ...... 88 4.4.2.8 Security ...... 95 4.4.2.9 Social, Health and Education Policy ...... 99 4.4.2.10 American Economy ...... 105 4.4.2.11 Resistance to Interest Groups ...... 107 4.4.2.12 Environment ...... 109 4.4.2.13 Abortion and Other Controversial Issues ...... 112 4.4.3 Conclusion ...... 115

4.5 Purr and Snarl Words ...... 117

4.5.1 Introduction ...... 117 4.5.2 Purr and Snarl Words as Extreme Cases of Hidden Bias ...... 119 4.5.3 Purr and Snarl Words in the Debates ...... 121 4.5.3.1 Primary Purr Words ...... 121 4.5.3.2 Secondary Purr Words ...... 131 4.5.3.3 Family Relations Words ...... 146 4.5.3.4 Snarl Words ...... 155 4.5.4 Conclusion ...... 160

4.6 Euphemism ...... 163

4.6.1 Introduction ...... 163 4.6.2 Euphemism as a Form of Doublespeak ...... 166 4.6.3 Hidden Bias and Purr Words as Basic Components of Euphemism ...... 168 4.6.4 Euphemisms in the Presidential Debates ...... 169 4.6.4.1 Euphemisms Used in More than One Period ...... 171 4.6.4.2 Euphemisms Used Only in 2000 ...... 190 4.6.4.3 Euphemisms Used Only in 2004 ...... 194 4.6.4.4 Euphemisms Used Only in 2008 ...... 198 4.6.5 Conclusion ...... 203

5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 206

Summary ...... 218

Bibliography ...... 220

List of Graphs

Graph 1: Hidden Bias ...... 47 Graph 2: Hidden Bias Related to Other Topics than Iraq ...... 116 Graph 3: Hidden Bias Related to Iraq ...... 116 Graph 4: Primary Purr Words ...... 122 Graph 5: Secondary Purr Words ...... 133 Graph 6: Family Relations Words ...... 148 Graph 7: Snarl Words ...... 156 Graph 8: Euphemisms ...... 171 Graph 9: Methods of Creating Euphemisms Used by Republicans ...... 204 Graph 10: Methods of Creating Euphemisms Used by Democrats ...... 204 Graph 11: Lexical Doublespeak ...... 213

1

1 Introduction

The fact that there is some relation between language and political thought and that the language politicians use can up to a certain degree influence people‘s political thought has become widely accepted by linguistic scholars. The idea of such an effect of language on political thought goes back to George Orwell and was further developed in the second half of the 20th century, mainly in the 1970s by linguists of the Committee on Public Doublespeak of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). The most common term for such a language is the expression doublespeak, in particular thanks to two publications by the NCTE – Language and Public Policy edited by Hugh Rank from 1974 and Teaching about Doublespeak edited by Daniel Dietrich from 1976. The term doublespeak itself was coined in 1972 by Virginia Reid, a member of the Committee on Public Doublespeak, and it is a compound word originating in Orwell‘s two terms: newspeak and doublethink (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 8). Geis (1987: 20) calls the language which has ―some sort of substantive, unconscious influence on thought‖ consistently by the fairly similar term doubletalk, and Poole (2006: 4) coins a completely new term denoting this kind of language. According to him, the widely used term doublespeak, which is originally supposed to denote the misuse of euphemisms, has over the decades become itself nothing more than a euphemism for lying. He thus suggests the term unspeak, which, according to him, much better articulates the two basic purposes of such language. First, as stated by Poole (2006: 3), ―it represents an attempt to say something without saying it, without getting into an argument and so having to justify itself‖. Simultaneously, he claims, ―it tries to unspeak – in the sense of erasing, or silencing – any possible opposing point of view, by laying a claim right at the start to only one way of looking at a problem‖ (Poole 2006: 3). However, even though Poole‘s arguments make perfect sense, the term unspeak did not take hold, and the household expressions doublespeak or doubletalk continue to be used to denote linguistic means used by politicians in order to unconsciously influence people‘s political thought. Other authors, in particular Bolinger (1980) and Bolinger and Sears (1981), consider such language as loaded or biased, and speak about control through language in politics.

2

1.1 Definitions of Doublespeak

There are several definitions of doublespeak; the most commonly quoted one being by Lutz (1990: 1). According to him

doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn‘t. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language which conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it.

A similar definition is offered by Kehl (1988: 9), who claims that

Doublespeak, constituting the linguistic manifestation of doublethink and involving incongruity between word and referent, is language used to confuse or deceive, serving less to express than to impress, less to communicate than to manipulate, and which, by means of elevation, obfuscation, inundation, circumambulation, dissipation, equivocation, and prevarication, violates both language, the purpose of which is to communicate, and people, whose human dignity demands truth, honesty, and a degree of autonomy.

Kehl also describes doublespeak as ―incongruity between what is said – or left unsaid – and what really is, between word and referent, between seem and be. It is the incongruity between what language is supposed to do – communicate – and what doublespeak does – obfuscate‖ (1982: 152). Winter (1982) attempts to distinguish between doublespeak and lying, insisting that doublespeak is not lying or just merely sloppy language. In her opinion, it is ―the intentional use of euphemisms, synonyms, jargon, and vagueness which pretends to communicate but really does not, or which implies the opposite of what it would appear to be communicating.‖ (1982:18). Penelope (1989) defines doublespeak in a concise way. According to her ―the essence of doublespeak is the speaker‘s refusal to name or describe accurately events and actions; it is the manipulation of vocabulary and syntax in order to omit responsibility for particular actions and events‖ (1989: 166). It is important to distinguish between doublespeak and plain lying, as the two are not the same. Bramer (1989), who deals with doublespeak from the point of view of ethics, defines lying as ―a clear, unequivocal, intentional statement of falsehood‖ (1989: 3

67), but insists on distinguishing lying from other forms of verbal deception. He thus suggests the definition of doublespeak as ―deliberately deceptive language other than lying‖ (1989: 68).

1.2 Historical Overview

Even though the word doublespeak was coined as late as at the beginning of the 1970s, it is not a new concept. Attempts to manipulate people through language are very old. Lutz (1990) mentions its presence already in ancient Rome, where announcements of traitors‘ executions were made in the form of saying ―they have lived‖ (1990: 7). At the same time, Caesar, in his account of the Gallic Wars, wrote about his brutal and bloody conquest and subjugation of Gaul as ―pacifying‖ Gaul (Lutz 1990: 7). Other surviving doublespeak expressions are those coined by the Nazis – work camp and especially final solution. In 1947, the name of the United States Department of War was changed to the Department of Defense (Lutz 1990: 10). These are just very few examples which probably led the first person to deal with this issue – George Orwell – to write his essay Politics and the English Language and later his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where he formulates his notions about language. The use of doublespeak culminated at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, which was the time of the Vietnam War. Orwell‘s work inspired many scholars, in particular members of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) who were appalled by the misuse of language in politics. Gibson and Lutz (1991) describe the circumstances of NCTE Convention of 1971 in Las Vegas, which was attended by several thousand members and among other topics dealt with what was then called public lying (1991: 6-7). Two of the proposals presented at the convention‘s business meeting were devoted to this issue. The resolutions read:

RESOLVED, that the National Council of Teachers of English find means to study dishonest and inhumane uses of language and literature by advertisers, to bring offenses to public attention, and to propose techniques for preparing children to cope with commercial propaganda (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 7)

RESOLVED, that the National Council of Teachers of English find means to study relations of language to public policy, to keep track of, publicize, and combat semantic distortion by public officials, candidates for office, political commentators, and all those who transmit through the mass media (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 7)

4

The two resolutions were passed, and the Committee on Public Doublespeak of the NCTE was created. It had 5 members, and its first meeting took place in Minneapolis in November, 1972 (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 8). However, in the summer of 1973, ―the Watergate hearings abruptly brought political doublespeak right into everyone‘s living room‖ (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 9). The Nixon administration‘s doublespeak increased public‘s interest in this issue, and in December 1973, a plan to make ―an annual Orwellian award to the worst example of doublespeak‖ was mentioned in an editorial in New York Times (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 10). The winner of the first such award, which was conferred at the 1974 convention as the most outrageous example of doublespeak over the preceding year, was Colonel David Opfer, U.S. Air Attaché in Cambodia who said ―You always write it‘s bombing, bombing, bombing. It‘s not bombing! It‘s air support!‖ This happened after a U.S. bombing raid in Cambodia (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 10). Another annual award called the Orwell Award was established in 1975. This is given to the author of a work ―which has made an outstanding contribution to the critical analysis of public discourse‖ (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 11-12). Since 1979, when William Lutz became the chair of the Committee on Public Doublespeak, there was a steady increase in the committee‘s activity. It published the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak, which included not only current doublespeak samples, but also short articles, book reviews and cartoons. In 1990, the circulation of the Quarterly Review was 5,000, and subscribers were from 50 states and 23 foreign countries. The committee had 36 members then (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 14). Since the beginning of the 1990s, several more publications on the topic of doublespeak have been published, such as Lutz (1996), Aunk (2002), Lutz (1999), Webb (2006), Wasserman and Hausrath (2006), the latter two being attempts at a dictionary of doublespeak.

1.3 Aims of the Analysis

A turning point in the interest in doublespeak were the events of September 11, 2001, and the upcoming war on terror, strongly promoted by George W. Bush. According to Pinker (2007), the American invasion into Iraq was ―the most despised

5

American foreign policy initiative since the war in Vietnam‖ (2007: 7). Danner (2007) speaks about the war on terror as a ―war unbounded by space or by time, unlimited in extent and metaphysical in ambition: a forever war launched against evil itself‖ (2007: 16). He claims that the war is rather virtual in its character and he compares it to the virtual never-ending conflict between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia in Orwell‘s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Massing (2007) compares the Bush administration to the all- powerful Party in this Orwell‘s novel (2007: 174), and Westen (2007) even claims that the name of the novel should have been Two Thousand and Four instead of Nineteen Eighty-Four, as, according to him, ―the first years of the new millennium were the most Orwellian of American democracy‖ (2007: 75). These assertions lead me to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The use of doublespeak has become more widespread and elaborate after September 11, 2001

By criticizing the language of the Bush administration after 2001, the above- mentioned authors actually criticize the language of a Republican administration. Similarly, the criticism of the Nixon administration‘s doublespeak by members of the NCTE after the Watergate scandal at the beginning of the 1970s (see chapter 1.2) was actually criticism of the language of a Republican administration. These facts lead me to the question, whether doublespeak is mainly a matter of the Republican Party and whether there are any differences between doublespeak used by Republican politicians and Democratic politicians. The notion that doublespeak is used predominantly by Republicans is strongly supported by Lakoff (2005), who claims that what he calls Orwellian language is actually the language of the conservatives (2005: 21). He mentions language guidelines drawn specifically for conservative candidates and other public figures such as lawyers, and even students intending to become conservative public figures. He mentions books written by the linguist Frank Luntz, which are, according to Lakoff, used as training manuals for these conservative public figures, teaching them what language they should use (2005: 22). The second hypothesis is thus as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Republican candidates use doublespeak more than Democratic candidates and their doublespeak is more sophisticated

6

However, to answer the questions concerning the quantity of doublespeak used by members of the two main American political parties in the periods before and after 2001 is not enough. It is essential to find the answer to the question why such language is used, namely what politicians strive to achieve by using doublespeak. According to Rank (1976), communication is manipulated by people ―1) to intensify their own good; 2) to intensify others‘ bad; 3) to downplay their own bad; and 4) to downplay others‘ good‖ (1976: 15). This gives rise to the third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Politicians use doublespeak in order to intensify their own good, downplay their own bad, intensify their opponents’ bad, or downplay their opponents’ good

Thus, the analysis is both quantitative and qualitative. The object of the analysis is the televised presidential debates in the United States of America in the years 2000, 2004, and 2008. The objective of the thesis is to find out whether there are any differences between the use of doublespeak by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in those particular election years, and also to try to uncover what effects the use of such language might have on the thought and political opinions of the electorate. In addition, my purpose is to identify and analyze the linguistic means of doublespeak.

1.4 Object of the Analysis

As stated above, the analysis focuses on the differences between the use of doublespeak before and after the events of September 11, 2001. As the aim of doublespeak is to influence people‘s opinions on political issues and to win the electorate over, it is in the politicians‘ best interest to employ such language at occasions when it is possible to reach a large audience. Furthermore, in order to be able to analyze and compare the discourse of both Republican and Democratic politicians, it is necessary that both a Republican and Democratic politician participate on such an occasion of language production equally and also that they speak about the identical political issues. All these three conditions are met in the televised presidential debates.

7

The United States presidential election debates take place every four years before each presidential election. There are three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. The very first such debate took place in 1960 between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy and was watched by 77 million people, which represented 60% of the adult American population (Minow and Lamay 2008: 10). Minow and Lamay describe the presidential debates as the only occasions when the American public has the opportunity to see the two presidential candidates speak directly to each other face to face (2008: 11), and they are the only occasions when the candidates are together side by side, but cannot control the conditions of the encounter (2008: 104). It is thus a unique opportunity for the public to compare the candidates and make an opinion about them, but simultaneously it is a unique opportunity for the candidates to get huge masses of people on their side. The analysis focuses on the debates of the presidential candidates before the election of 2000, 2004 and 2008. Although one vice-presidential debate also took place in each of the election years, the vice-presidential debates do not make part of the analysis. Detailed information about the presidential debates can be found on the Commission on Presidential Debates webpage (www.debates.org), the Commission being the sponsor and organizer of the debates since 1988. All the debates take 90 minutes and always start at 9:00 p.m. and finish at 10:30 p.m. EST. In 2000, the presidential candidates were then-Vice-president Al Gore from the Democratic Party and Texas Governor George W. Bush from the Republican Party. Detailed information about the debates can be found in the following table:

8

Date: October 3 October 11 October 17 University of Wake Forest University Washington University Location: Massachusetts City: Boston, MA Winston-Salem, NC St. Louis, MO Moderator: Jim Lehrer, PBS Jim Lehrer, PBS Jim Lehrer, PBS Viewership: 46.6 million 37.5 million 37.7 million Single moderator; Single moderator; Town hall style debate; candidates questioned in candidates questioned in single moderator; turn with two minutes to turn with two minutes to candidates questioned in Format: answer; 60 second answer; 60 second turn with two minutes to rebuttal; two minute rebuttal; two minute answer; 60 second rebuttal; closing statements. closing statements. two minute closing statements.

Source: www.debates.org

In 2004, the presidential candidates were then-President George W. Bush from the Republican Party and United States Senator John Kerry from the Democratic Party. Detailed information about the debates can be found in the following table:

Date: September 30 October 8 October 13 University of Miami Washington University in Arizona State University Location: St. Louis City: Coral Gables, FL St. Louis, MO Tempe, AZ Moderator: Jim Lehrer, PBS Charles Gibson, ABC Bob Schieffer, CBS Topic: Foreign Policy Domestic and Foreign Domestic Policy Policy Viewership: 62.4 million 46.7 million 51.1 million 90-minute debate with 90-minute town hall 90-minute debate with candidates standing at meeting debate. candidates standing at podiums. Candidates Candidates questioned by podiums. Candidates questioned in turn with uncommitted voters questioned in turn with two-minute responses, identified by the Gallup two-minute responses, 90- Format: 90-second rebuttals and, Organization. Two-minute second rebuttals and, at the at the moderator's responses, 90-second moderator's discretion, discretion, discussion rebuttals and, at the discussion extensions of extensions of one moderator's discretion, one minute. minute. discussion extensions of one minute.

Source: www.debates.org

In 2008, the candidates were United States Senator John McCain from the Republican Party and United States Senator Barack Obama from the Democratic Party. Detailed information about the debates can be found in the following table:

9

Date: September 26 October 2 October 7 The University of Washington University in Belmont University Location: Mississippi St. Louis City: Oxford, MS St. Louis, MO Nashville, TN Moderator: Jim Lehrer, PBS Gwen Ifill, PBS Tom Brokaw, NBC Topic: Foreign Policy and All Topics All Topics National Security Viewership: 52.4 million 69.9 million 63.2 million 90-minute debate with 90-minute debate with 90-minute town hall candidates standing at candidates standing at meeting debate. Candidates podiums. Candidates podiums. Candidates questioned by uncommitted questioned in turn with questioned in turn with 90- voters identified by the two-minute responses, second responses, Gallup Organization. In followed by five minutes followed by two minutes addition, the moderator had of open discussion of open discussion for discretion to include Format: between the moderator each question. Ninety questions submitted online. and candidates for each second closing statements. Candidates questioned in question. turn with two-minute responses, followed by one-minute open discussion for each question.

Source: www.debates.org

The United States presidential debates, or televised political debates in general, can be considered as a manifestation of spoken language, which differs from written language in many respects (Vachek 1974; Halliday 1990; Urbanová 2008). According to Vachek (1974), two essential features of spoken language are its immediateness and readiness (1974: 413). Urbanová speaks about the structure of a natural conversation as a three-part exchange, i.e. the initial utterance of the first speaker, the utterance of the second speaker and the second utterance of the first speaker (2008: 38). However, a televised presidential debate cannot be considered a natural conversation situation. According to Čmejrková (2003), one of the main differences between a media dialogue and traditional dialogue is the fact that the speaker actually addresses the audience instead of his or her interlocutor. The media dialogue then loses some of the features typical of a traditional dialogue and acquires new ones (2003: 85). Čmejrková (2003) compares such a media dialogue to theater dialogue; however, the difference is that the audience is not present, only surmised. There might, however, also be members of the audience present in the studio in addition to the surmised audience watching on TV, and Čmejrková speaks about such cases as the ‗double communication

10 constellation‘, when the internal communication circuit is superposed by the external communication circuit (2003: 85). This is also the case of the United States presidential debates. The communication situation when there are two guests in the studio is described by Čmejrková (2003) as a ‗double interview‘ when the guests communicate with the moderator and with each other, while addressing themselves to the audience (2003: 86). Such a situation is demonstrated in the following chart:

Moderator

Guest 1 Guest 2

AUDIENCE

(Čmejrková 2003: 87)

As far as the spoken norm of language is concerned, Vachek (1974) distinguishes between the means of expressing purely communicative component parts, or in other words the ―intellectual content‖ of the extralinguistic reality being communicated and the means of expressing its emotional component parts, such as patterns of sentence melody, varying rate of speech, differences of timbre in sounds, different degrees of intensity of sentence stress, etc. (1974: 413-414). These emotional component parts are not taken into consideration and are disregarded in the analysis.

11

2 Language and Thought

The relation between language and thought has preoccupied philosophers and scholars since antiquity (Gibson and Lutz 1991; Gumperz and Levinson 1996; Poole 2006). As well as being the focus of European thinkers, such as Gorgias, Protagoras and Plato, this issue was also already dealt with in the fifth century BC by Confucius (Poole 2006: 1; Riegel 2012). Confucius speaks about the ―rectification of names‖ by politicians and claims that ―if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried out to success‖. This, according to Confucius, leads also to incorrect punishments (Confucius, Faxian and Mencius 2003). Although German linguists of the late-eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries (in particular, Johann Georg Hamann, Johann Gottfried Herder, and Wilhelm von Humboldt) were concerned with the linguistic influence on thought, the hypothesis that language has an influence on people‘s perception and conceptualization of the world became known through the work of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf (Swoyer 2010). In his essay, The Status of Linguistics as a Science, Sapir (1970: 68-69) claims that

language is a guide to ‗social reality‘[...] Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communicative reflection. [...] We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.

Sapir‘s thesis is extended into a new version through a series of studies on Native American languages by Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956: 12), who argued that ―the linguistic system fashions the ideas, it is the program and the guide of individual mental activity, the cause of their analyses of impressions, the cause of the syntheses which operates his mental stock‖.

This is what later became known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Although the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has not been proven and is nowadays considered rather

12 controversial (Geis 1987; Gumperz and Levinson 1996; Swoyer 2010; Scholz, Pelletier and Pullum 2011), it is generally accepted by the same authors that there are two forms of the hypothesis – the strong one and the weak one. While according to the strong form of the hypothesis, thought is determined by language, according to the weak form, thought is only influenced by language. In other words, as stated by Pütz and Verspoor (2000: ix-x), the weak version of the hypothesis suggests that ―language may not determine the way we think, but that it does influence the way we perceive and remember‖. The weak form of the hypothesis hasn‘t been dismissed completely, as it is evident that language must shape thought in a way (Scholz, Pelletier and Pullum 2011). Pinker (2007) names ten possible degrees how language can be related to thought, starting with the most banal one, i.e. that our knowledge is acquired through language, to the most radical one, i.e. that ―if two cultures speak languages that differ in the concepts they can express, their beliefs are incommensurable, and communication between them is impossible‖ (2007: 134). What is worth noticing is Pinker‘s second degree, i.e. that ―a sentence can frame an event, affecting the way that people construe it, in addition to simply conveying who did what to whom‖ (2007: 126). In other words, the way something is formulated influences how people perceive it. As examples, Pinker mentions pairs of words such as pro-choice and pro-life, redistribution and confiscation, and invading and liberating (2007: 126). Pinker himself, however, maintains that the listener is not necessarily obliged to construe a situation according to how it is framed by the speaker, and compares it to believing or not believing that what the speaker is saying is true (2007: 127). He points out that individuals have the capacity to evaluate whether such a frame corresponds to reality or not (2007: 127). On the other hand, Lakoff (2002; 2005) and Lakoff and Wehling (2012) stress the importance of framing when evoking our ideas and our worldview. The way we frame what we say thus has an impact on how people perceive reality. As claimed by Lutz (1989b), language thus controls mind and ―if language can be used to control minds, then those who control language can control minds and ultimately control society‖ (1989b: 2). This is a view first pronounced and described in detail by George Orwell, first in his essay, Politics and the English Language, and later in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

13

2.1 George Orwell

George Orwell himself develops his ideas about the relation between language and politics first in his essay, Politics and the English Language (first published in 1946), and later in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (first published in1949), in particular in the appendix to this novel, where he describes the principles of newspeak. As Lemann (2007) asserts, ―to Orwell, the connection between the English language and politics was that the debasement of the latter requires the corruption of the former‖ (2007: 9-10).

2.1.1 Politics and the English Language

In his essay, Politics and the English Language, Orwell claims that the English language is ―in a bad way‖ (2007: 205). In his opinion, our civilization is decadent and the language inevitably has to ―share in the general collapse‖ (2007: 205). He maintains that this decline certainly has political and economic causes. He speaks about a kind of vicious circle: the English language ―becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts‖ (2007: 206). According to Orwell, there are two features common to the bad use of English. One of them is a staleness of imagery and the second one is a lack of precision. He criticizes the ―vagueness and sheer incompetence‖ of political authors and the fact that words are not chosen according to their meaning, but phrases are rather ―tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house‖ (2007: 209). He thus attempts to create a list of misdemeanors which includes 1) dying metaphors, 2) operators of verbal false limbs, 3) pretentious diction, and 4) meaningless words.

As for ―dying metaphors‖, he approves of newly invented metaphors, but is strongly against metaphors which are ―technically dead‖, especially because people use them instead of inventing new phrases. Such metaphors are, according to him, e.g. stand shoulder to shoulder with, toe the line, play into the hands of, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day or Achilles’ heel. He objects not only to the use itself of these dead metaphors, but also to the misuse of them, as he claims that many people don‘t know their exact meaning (2007: 209).

14

Orwell‘s critique of what he calls ―operators of verbal false limbs‖ includes the means of expression, which, according to him, ―save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry‖ (2007: 210-211). He criticizes in particular the use of phrases composed of a noun or adjective and a general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, render etc. instead of using simple verbs like break, stop, spoil, or kill. The latter are thus eliminated and expressions like render inoperative, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of etc. are used instead of them. In addition, he criticizes the use of passive voice instead of the active voice, the use of noun constructions instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining), the use of verbs ending by –ize and –de and common use of the form not un- instead of simple affirmatives, as well as the replacement of simple conjunctions and prepositions by phrases like with respect to, having regard to, in view of etc. (2007: 209-210).

The third point of his critique is what he calls ―pretentious diction‖, i.e. abounding use of foreign or archaic words in order to sound more scientific, cultural or elegant. He claims that Latin or Greek words such as ameliorate, clandestine or extraneous are not grander than Saxon expressions and thus need not be used at all in English (2007: 210-211).

By meaningless words, he means those words whose meaning is not clearly defined and is variable, such as class, totalitarian, science, equality etc. Similarly, words like romantic, plastic, natural, or dead as in e.g. ―The immediately striking thing about Mr. X‘s work is its peculiar deadness‖ are in Orwell‘s opinion meaningless (2007: 210). However, the most important group of words which are, according to him, meaningless and abused in politics are words like fascism, democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, or justice. He claims that these words have virtually lost their meaning and nowadays only mean something which is desirable or, on the other hand, undesirable (2007: 210). These expressions later became known as ‗purr‘ and ‗snarl‘ words (cf. Hayakawa 1949; Leech 1990).

However, the concept of what later became known as doublespeak is best described by Orwell in the part dealing with language which has to be used when politicians speak about political events which are negative, but they cannot be conveyed

15 to the public in such a negative raw way, and politicians tend to shape public thought about these issues (2007: 217):

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

He gives several examples of expressions which are needed when it is necessary to name certain things, but at the same time necessary to avoid ―calling up mental pictures of them‖ (2007: 218):

Defenseless villagers are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. […] Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian Totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‗I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so‘.

Orwell concludes the essay by suggesting that these imperfections should be removed from language by reducing the use of metaphors, similes or other figures of speech, preferring short words to long words, leaving out unnecessary words, preferring the use of active voice to passive voice, and avoiding unnecessary foreign phrases, scientific words and jargon (2007: 221).

2.1.2 Nineteen Eighty-Four

It has already been stated above that the term doublespeak comes from two terms Orwell used in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four – newspeak and doublethink. The principles of newspeak are explained by Orwell himself in the appendix to the novel (1989: 312-326).

16

Newspeak, Orwell explains, is designed in order to be used in the country of Oceania and is supposed to replace Oldspeak (Standard English) by the year 2050. The main aim is to fulfill the ideology of Ingsoc (Newspeak term for English socialism) by excluding all words which might have the meaning that should not be expressed by the members of the party. Thus, according to Orwell, thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc ―should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words‖ (1989: 312). New words are invented and undesirable words are eliminated. One of the examples given by Orwell is the word free. This word continues to exist in newspeak, but only in the meaning ―being free from something‖. It does not exist anymore in the sense of ―politically free‖ or ―intellectually free‖, because the concepts of political or intellectual freedom don‘t exist themselves, so there is no need to name them (1989: 313). Orwell divides the newspeak vocabulary into three classes: A vocabulary, B vocabulary (compound words) and C vocabulary. A vocabulary covers the issues of everyday life such as eating, working, cooking etc. Words like food, house, and dog from Standard English are mostly used, but their number is much smaller and their meanings are defined much more strictly than in oldspeak. No ambiguities or shades of meaning remain, and each word thus expresses one particular concept understandable to everyone (1989: 314). B vocabulary is explained by Orwell as words which are created to be used in the field of politics. All of them are noun-verb compounds. As an example of such a word, Orwell mentions the word goodthink, as a noun meaning orthodoxy and as a verb meaning to think in an orthodox manner. On the other hand, other words, which have undesirable meaning, such as honor, justice, morality, democracy, religion etc., do not exist in newspeak (1989: 317-318). Words in the B vocabulary are ideologically biased, and many of them are euphemisms such as joycamp (forced-labor camp) or the names of the ministries – Miniluv (Ministry of Love), Minipax (Ministry of Peace), Minitrue (Ministry of Truth) and Miniplenty (Ministry of Plenty); in all cases the names mean the exact opposite of the ministry‘s purpose (Orwell, 1989: 319-320). Names of institutions, organizations, buildings etc. tend to be reduced into a short single word, usually an abbreviation of the original word. A good example is the above-mentioned names of the ministries, but Orwell also gives examples from the first half of the 20th century, such as Nazi, Gestapo or Comintern. He insists that the words be easy to pronounce and euphonic. He

17 describes all the short clipped words as very similar, all of them being composed of two or three syllables, and the stress being equally put on the first and last syllables. The speech thus sounds like gabbling and is monotonous – this is supposed to fulfill the aim of consciousness-independent speech. Instead of increasing the vocabulary, the aim is to reduce it to a minimum and it is hoped to ―make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all‖ (1989: 322). There is a newspeak term for this purpose, duckspeak, meaning ―to quack like a duck‖ (1989: 322). Thus, many crimes and errors cannot even be committed, because they are ―nameless and therefore unimaginable‖ (1989: 324). This notion relates Orwell to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – language influences the mind, and therefore something which does not have a name in the language does not even come into people‘s mind. C vocabulary consists of scientific and technical terms similar to actual English terms, but they follow the newspeak grammatical rules, exactly like the A and B category words. They are not used in everyday or political speech. (1989: 322-323). The difference between standard English grammar and newspeak grammar as described by Orwell consists mainly in the simplification of the grammatical rules and abolition of most irregular forms (1989: 314-316). The other concept which makes part of the term doublespeak is Orwell‘s newspeak term doublethink, which would be translated to oldspeak simply as reality control (Orwell 1989: 223). Orwell explains doublethink as the ―power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one‘s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.‖ (1989: 223). It means

to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink (Orwell 1989: 223).

Both of these Orwellian notions – newspeak and doublethink have had a very strong impact on linguists dealing with political speech. One can quite naturally see the direct connection between Orwell‘s language ideas and the language used by the Nazis during the Second World War or by Communists in the USSR. But according to Brent (1989: 99), much more important for

18

Orwell‘s later work was his experience in the Spanish Civil War where he served the Republican cause. Brent mentions Orwell‘s earlier book Homage to Catalonia, where he deals with his experience from this war and quotes his question from his essay entitled Looking Back on the Spanish War: ―...If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‗It never happened‘ – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs‖ (Orwell 2003). The phrase ―two and two are five‖ is a sentence very often mentioned in Nineteen Eighty-Four and it is necessary to accept this in order to survive in Oceania.

2.1.3 Orwellian Linguistics

Orwell‘s ideas and opinions on the relationship between language and politics have been discussed and further developed by several linguists (e.g. Hodge and Fowler 1979; Lutz 1989a; Lakoff 2005; Luntz 2007; Szántó 2007). Whereas this kind of language is called Orwellian language by Lakoff, who claims that by using it the speaker demonstrates his weakness (2004: 22) and Hodge and Fowler describe it as Orwellian linguistics (1979: 6), Luntz (2007: 49-51) objects to this misleading view and claims that the term Orwellian does not refer to doublespeak, i.e. shoddy language, but rather the opposite, to language that is simple, straightforward, clear, explicit, and uncomplicated. However, Lakoff (2004: 22-23) criticizes Luntz himself for being the one creating the doublespeak for conservative politicians and other public figures, telling them which language they should use in order to impress the audience and influence their thought. Luntz is a corporate consultant, pollster and political consultant cooperating closely with the Republican Party. He specializes in ―testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate‖ (Interview Frank Luntz 2004). Luntz (2007: 5-26) draws a list of ten rules of successful communication. The first rule is Simplicity: Use Small Words. For example, when speaking about immigration, he suggests putting stress on four basic words: prevention, protection, accountability, and compassion. He claims that ―the more simply and plainly an idea is presented, the more understandable it is – and therefore the more credible it will be (2007: 5). The second rule is Brevity: Use Short Sentences. Luntz claims that the

19 audience responds to them better than to long, complex sentences and that using a phrase should be preferred to using a sentence and using three words should be used instead of four, etc. (2007: 7). Luntz‘s third rule is Credibility Is As Important As Philosophy. He advises that credibility should be established by telling people ―who you are and what you do. Then be that person and do what you have said you would do. And finally, remind people that you are what in fact you say you are‖ (2007: 11). The fourth rule is Consistency Matters, by which he actually means repeating the same things, ideally by using the same language every time. The Luntz‘s fifth rule is Novelty: Offer Something New, or in other words, use new words or new definitions for an old idea. As an example, he quotes his coinage of the expression accidental manslaughter to denote first-degree murder (2007: 13-14). Although accidental manslaughter is not, according to Luntz, a legal term, it was permanently repeated at court, and as a result started to be used in newspapers in the articles referring to that particular case. Thanks to pleading guilty to this accidental manslaughter, the murderer spent six years in prison instead of a possible death penalty. (2007: 13-14). The Luntz‘s sixth rule is Sound and Texture Matter. He argues that the sounds and texture should be easy to remember by claiming that ―a string of words that have the same first letter, the same sound, or the same syllabic cadence is more memorable than a random collection of sounds‖ (2007: 16). Rule number seven is Speak Aspirationally. According to Luntz, you should say what people want to hear, and it is important to bear in mind that it is more probable that people will remember how they felt when you were speaking rather than what you were actually saying. The eighth rule is Visualize. In Luntz‘s opinion, it is essential that words ―paint a vivid picture‖ in people‘s minds (2007: 20). The penultimate rule is Ask a Question. Luntz argues that stating one‘s opinions by way of rhetorical questions is more personalized and thus better. On the other hand, the listener‘s reaction to simple assertions depends to a certain degree on their opinion of the person speaking (2007: 24). The last of the Luntz‘s ten rules is Provide Context and Explain Relevance. As Luntz himself puts it, ―context is so important that it serves not only as the last and most important rule of effective communication, but also as its own chapter. You have to give people the ‗why‘ of a message before you tell them the ‗therefore‘ and the ‗so that‘‖ (2007: 26). Several parallels can be found when comparing Luntz‘s ten rules of effective communication with the description of Newspeak B vocabulary by George Orwell. Such parallels can be found in Orwell for five out of the ten rules, as shown in the

20 following table. The rules are Simplicity, Brevity, Consistency, Novelty, and Sound and Texture. Quotes taken directly from Orwell‘s essay The Principles of Newspeak are given in the right column of the table (Orwell 1989: 312-326).

Luntz’s Rules of Effective Communication Orwell’s Newspeak B Vocabulary 1. Simplicity: Use Small Words ―The name of every organization, or body of people, or doctrine, or country, or institution, or public building, was invariably cut down into the familiar shape; that is, a single easily pronounced word with the smallest number of syllables that would preserve the original derivation‖ (320). 2. Brevity: Use Short Sentences ―The B words were a sort of verbal shorthand, often packing whole ranges of ideas into a few syllables, and at the same time more accurate and forcible than ordinary language‖ (316). 4. Consistency Matters ―Newspeak, indeed, differed from almost all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought‖ (322). 5. Novelty: Offer Something New ―The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them‖ (316). ―The greatest difficulty facing the compilers of the Newspeak Dictionary was not to invent new words, but, having invented them, to make sure what they meant: to make sure, that is to say, what ranges of words they cancelled by their existence‖ (318). 6. Sound and Texture Matter ―…almost exaggerated care that was taken to make every word easily pronounceable. In Newspeak, euphony outweighed every consideration other than exactitude of meaning‖ (321).

Luntz is criticized by Lakoff (2005), who warns liberals from repeating conservative language, as this, in his opinion, leads to the promotion of conservative ideas by helping them get into the brains of the public (Lakoff and Wehling, 2012: 38).

21

Lakoff and Wehling (2012: 41) propose techniques of language manipulation supporting the liberal point of view. They suggest using basic-level words, i.e. words that make up ―our most basic conceptual repertoire‖. As examples of such basic-level words they give the word chair in contrast to a superordinate-level word furniture. Similarly, the basic-level words forest, soil, water, air and sky should be preferred to the superordinate-level word environment (Lakoff and Wehling 2012: 41-42). Lakoff (2005: 23-24) claims that liberal politicians suffer of hypocognition, i.e. ―the lack of the ideas you need, the lack of a relatively simple fixed frame that can be evoked by a word or two‖ (2005: 24). As a result, they are not, according to Lakoff, able to formulate their ideas in simple, positive, easily memorable phrases (2005: 23).

22

3 Language as a Means of Thought Control

3.1 Doublespeak

3.1.1 Basic Division by Lutz

Lutz (1990: 2-6) distinguishes between four kinds of doublespeak: euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook or bureaucratese, and inflated language. Euphemisms can be considered doublespeak, according to Lutz, when they are not used just because of sensitivity for people‘s feelings or because it is a social or cultural taboo to use the expression itself, but when they are used with the purpose of mystifying, misleading, or covering up something unpleasant; or simply when they are used to ―alter our perception of reality‖ (1990: 2-3). The second form of doublespeak, according to Lutz, is jargon. It is used when the speaker or writer wants to manifest profundity, authority or prestige. But the result, Lutz claims, is rather pretentious obscure language which makes very simple issues seem complicated. Similarly, when jargon is used to impress instead of express and makes the ordinary profound and the obvious insightful, it can also be considered a form of doublespeak (1990: 3-5). Gobbledygook or Bureaucratese is defined by Lutz as the effort to overwhelm the audience with words. They are words assembled together in order to sound impressive and ―the bigger the words and the longer the sentences the better‖ (1990: 5). However, as Lutz points out, when it is later looked at more closely, the sentences usually do not make much sense (1990: 5-6). Inflated language, which Lutz defines as ―designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary; to make everyday things seem impressive; to give an air of importance to people, situations, or things that would not normally be considered important; to make the simple seem complex‖ (1990: 6) is, according to Lutz the fourth and last form of doublespeak. He maintains that it is usually quite easy to spot this kind of language and it is usually rather more funny than dangerous (1990: 6). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) claim that when we perceive language metaphorically, we conceptualize it in terms of space. The metaphor is worded as ―linguistic expressions are containers and their meanings are the content of those containers‖ (1980: 127-128). This can also be considered an example of iconicity in

23 language (cf. Haiman 1980, 1983). Thus, we expect that the more form there is, the more content there is. Such perception of language is reinforced by the writing system – the longer something is, the more content it has. We can thus infer that using inflated language violates the perception of language in terms of this metaphor, as inflated language is usually based on the strategy the longer you speak and the less information you convey, the better.

3.1.2 Manipulation of Communication According to Rank and Hahn

Lutz‘s division is far from complete, and there are many other forms of doublespeak, sometimes much better hidden and much more difficult to identify. Rank (1976) designs a schema which seems to be more detailed. This schema is based on a two-part positive/negative basis, wherein the two parts are the intensifying and downplaying of various parts of information communicated (1976: 7). Both parts are further subdivided into three sections: intensifying into repetition, association and composition and downplaying into omission, diversion and confusion. But it is necessary to distinguish between ―who is saying what to whom, with what intent, with what result‖ (Rank 1976: 15). There are four options. People ―manipulate communication: 1) to intensify their own good; 2) to intensify others‘ bad; 3) to downplay their own bad; and 4) to downplay others‘ good‖ (Rank 1976: 15).

Intensify Repetition Intensify Own Intensify Association “Good” Others’ “Bad” Composition

Omission

Diversion Confusion Downplay Own Downplay Downplay “Bad” Others’ “Good”

Rank (1976: 8) Rank (1976: 15)

24

Intensification can be, according to Rank (1976), achieved by three techniques: repetition, association, and composition. He claims that repetition concerns in particular slogans, signs, symbols, logos and brand names. These are often repeated in order to intensify. The more often you hear or read something, the more you are likely to remember it. Much more common than random repetition is repetition with some kind of patterning in time or space (Rank, 1976: 9). The second intensification technique introduced by Rank, association, links ―the idea, person, or product with something already loved or desired – or hated or feared – by the intended audience‖ (1976: 9). Not only can verbal association be done by direct statements or allusions, but very often, Rank maintains, also by various kinds of metaphoric language: metaphors, similes, etc. The last technique mentioned by Rank is composition. He stresses the importance of word choice and arrangement within the sentence (1976: 10). The overall meaning of the utterance depends on the choice of nouns and verbs, as different nouns and verbs may have different level of abstraction or specificity, and on the choice of adjectives and adverbs, whose role is to modify the nouns and verbs (1976: 11).

The opposite of intensifying is downplaying, which is also divided by Rank into three subcategories. These are omission, diversion, and confusion. Omission is presented as a very wide concept which is not easy to analyze as the analysis focuses on something that is omitted or hidden. One of the most common forms of omissions stated by Rank is euphemism, which he defines as downplaying something which is unpleasant, unpopular or offensive by a more socially acceptable word. According to Hahn (1989: 112) euphemisms ―make situations that are intolerable seem tolerable, thus lessening our inclination to act to change them‖. He further maintains that ―how we perceive the world is determined by the language used to describe it‖ (1989: 113) and thus we ―cannot tell it like it is but rather tell it like we see it‖ (1989: 113). The second technique of downplaying according to Rank is diversion. The aim of this technique is to divert attention and distract focus away from important things. It is done by intensifying side-issues and emphasizing trivial and often non-related issues (Rank, 1976: 13). Other expression used for this common strategy in politics and international relations are ―red herring‖, ―straw man‖, ―hairsplitting‖, or ―nit-picking‖ (Rank, 1976: 13). The last method how to downplay is confusion. Rank (1976: 13) mentions several examples such as faulty logic, shifting definitions, equivocation, circumlocution,

25 multiple diversions, contradictions, inconsistencies or jargon. The aim of confusion is to make a situation complex, chaotic and unintelligible, as a result of which people become weary and over-loaded and do not care any more of what is being said (1976: 13). Rank resumes the description of what confusion is by stating that politicians seem to follow the advice ―If you can‘t convince ‗em, confuse ‗em‖ (1976: 15). Rank claims that while the techniques of intensifying are rather overt, the tactics of downplaying are much more difficult to identify and analyze. The methods of repetition, association and composition can be spotted rather easily, but when there is something withheld, hidden, or omitted, it is sometimes even impossible to be aware of such a fact (1976: 12).

Rank‘s schema of intensifying and downplaying can be supplemented by Hahn‘s categories of simplification and generalization which can be associated with both intensifying and downplaying (Hahn 1989: 115-117). As for simplification, Hahn (1989) claims that ―if problems need to be simple, then solutions to those problems have to be presented in simplified form as well‖ (1989: 115). One such example is slogans and, similarly to Rank, he mentions their necessary repetition – ―while slogans begin as simplifications of our beliefs, repeated often enough, they come to be our beliefs‖ (1989: 115). Another way of simplification in Hahn‘s opinion is by identifying problems with incumbents (1989: 116). It is not necessary for the public to understand the problems; it is easier to identify issues with particular people who represent these issues. It usually works in the following way:

Politicians select a portion of reality they perceive as a problem and give it a name, perhaps using a euphemism. Next, they describe the problem in a logical language so simplified that almost effortlessly, everyone can understand it. So it is easy to become convinced that, indeed, it is a simple problem, solvable by simple solutions. Finally, when the solution to the problem does not work, the fault must be with the person who proposed the solution and not with the solution itself (Hahn 1989: 116-117).

The second technique described by Hahn is generalization (1989: 117-120). According to Hahn, politicians have to generalize because of the necessity for ―appealing to a diverse audience‖ (1989: 117). But he sees the harm of generalizations in that they 1) complement the American all-encompassing two-party system, 2) they endanger the creation of meaningful distinctions, 3) they are dangerous to individualism

26 and 4) they allow leaders to manipulate people through an anxiety-reassurance cycle (1989: 117).

3.1.3 Political Jargon

A special case of doublespeak is jargon. D‘Angelo deals with this issue in his essay Fiddle-Faddle, Flapdoodle, and Balderdash: Some Thoughts about Jargon (1989). He distinguishes between three kinds of jargon which, as a matter of fact, could be considered as just one: pentagonese, bureacratese and officialese. By all of them, he understands ―the attempt to control the reactions of the public by avoiding language that creates verbal pictures or language that has negative connotations and by substituting a more neutral or abstract language‖ (1989: 125). The difference between the three, as D‘Angelo sees it, is that pentagonese is solely the language used by the Defense Department. Bureacratese is language used by the government and other politicians in Washington as well as by state and city governments. The D‘Angelo‘s last category is officialese, which he claims is used by public officials other than government bureaucrats. Another word used for these kinds of language is gobbledygook, which was coined by Maury Maverick, a former congressman from Texas (Noble 1982: 29). Maverick defines it as ―polysyllabic language used by the people in Washington‖, which uses ―extremely long sentences and pretentious and abstract language‖ (qtd. in D‘Angelo1989: 125). D‘Angelo (1989) lists eight most common features of jargon. These are shown in the following table:

1. Using several words when one word will do:

Exhibits a tendency – tends In an efficient manner – efficiently Make inquiry regarding – inquire Resembling in nature – like Reach a decision – decide Avail oneself of – use Render operative – fix Causative factor –cause A long period of time – long time

2. Preference for abstract nouns ending in –tion, -ity, -ment, -ness, -ance, -ative, -ate, -ous, -cy, -ist, and the like:

27

Utilization Nullity Apportionment Credulousness Discountenance Dentition Pertinacity Exigency Diplomatist Parsimonious

3. Excessive use of words with Latin or Greek prefixes:

Abnegation Circumspect Contravene Nonpreferential Intrazonal Debriefing Upgrade Antitechnology Bioelemetric Dishabituate

4. The use of stock phrases:

In the final analysis Other things being equal From the point of view of Within the framework of In the event that

5. The substitution of euphemisms for less explicit inoffensive terms:

Terminal living – dying Defensive maneuver – retreat Mild irregularity – constipation Bathroom tissue – toilet paper Encore telecast – rerun Senior citizens – old people Underprivileged – delinquent Substandard housing – slum

6. The overabundant use of clichés:

Lock, stock, and barrel Null and void Pick and choose Safe and sound Fair and square One and all As thick as thieves A grievous error All to the good Blank amazement

7. The extensive use of the passive voice, rather than the use of the more direct active voice:

Higher education may increase job opportunities. → Job opportunities may be increased by higher education. Avoid competitive activities. → Competitive activities should be avoided. The committee has solicited the report. → The report has been solicited by the committee. Anticipate the unpredictable. → Unpredictable elements must be anticipated.

8. The extensive use of noun strings:

Human factors engineering support Host area crisis shelter production planning workbook Management information system plan Congress refugee panel visit ban

D‘Angelo (1989: 128-129)

28

Similarly, jargon is dealt with by James Sledd in his article ―Doublespeak: Dialectology in the Service of Big Brother‖. He suggests a distinction between what he calls New High Bureaucratian and Somnigraphy:

New High Bureaucratian [...] is grammatical and has a meaning but obscures it by jargon. At its best, somnigraphy is neither grammatical nor meaningful; but no sentence can qualify as somnigraphic unless either its meaning or its grammar is somehow deviant. [...] Somnigraphy [is] the art of writing [and speaking] as if one were asleep. (Sledd 1972: 446)

Penelope (1989) suggests strategies for successful doublespeaking, both somnigraphy and new high bureacratian. According to her, the language that serves these strategies is characterized by five features which, according to her, are highly predictable (1989: 167-168). The first typical feature is an abounding use of euphemisms. The second feature is a very common absence of human agency, which results in the frequent use of nominalizations, truncated passives, infinitive constructions and impersonal sentences. The third feature, she claims, is frequent repetition of the same word, its derivatives or synonyms. The fourth feature is an illogical string of non sequiturs following one another; and the last, fifth feature, according to Penelope, is the common use of cultural metaphors, usually referring to sports, disease, sex, and violence (Penelope 1989: 168).

3.2 Loaded Language and Control through Language

The issue of language as a means of control of how reality is perceived by people is also discussed by Bolinger (1980), Bolinger and Sears (1981), Geis (1987), Leech (1990), Wilson and Kress (1990), Hodge and Kress (1993), Lakoff (2005), and Poole (2006). However, even though the concept is the same, these authors do not use the term doublespeak, and if they do, they only use it as a synonym for jargon as one particular form of such language (e.g. Bolinger 1980). Bolinger (1980) speaks about loaded or biased language and puts it into contrast with propositional language, which, according to him, is language used for stating facts; it is the language of responsibility and is truthful and accurate (1980: 69-70).

29

Loaded language, on the other hand, is described by Bolinger as language whose objective is to put something in either a favorable or unfavorable way. As a result, euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions are resorted to (1980: 72-73). The clearest and most concise overview and division of such loaded language is drawn by Bolinger and Sears (1981), who speak about control through language. They mention four forms of such control: favorable and unfavorable naming, elevation and degradation, code switching, and non-neutrality in grammar (Bolinger and Sears 1981: 146-153). For Bolinger and Sears themselves, the most typical example of favorable or unfavorable naming is epithets. Bolinger and Sears stress a common function of epithets, i.e. ―to insinuate a comparison without the hearer‘s being aware of it‖ (1981: 146).

3.2.1 Loaded Vocabulary

According to Bolinger, one of the basic kinds of expressing something in a favorable or unfavorable manner is what he calls hidden bias (1980: 75). He describes biased language as language which evades responsibility and claims that there is hardly any sentence in normal speech which lacks bias as it is very pervasive (1980: 71). He distinguishes between several kinds of bias. Apart from euphemisms and dysphemisms as such, he speaks about hidden bias in adjectives, nouns, and verbs (1980: 75-82). This means that these words imply a positive or a negative attitude; they evaluate reality in a particular way and can thus be considered as loaded (see chapter 4.4). Another type of loaded words, discussed in particular by Leech (1990: 43-44), is expressions in which the associative meaning (see chapter 4) is so strong that the conceptual meaning very often seems to be almost irrelevant. Hayakawa (1949) calls these expressions snarl words (e.g. fascism and communism) and purr words (e.g. freedom and democracy). The last form of loaded vocabulary, according to Bolinger and Sears (1981), is elevation and degradation, which more or less corresponds to what Leech calls associative engineering (c.f. Leech, 1990: 45-47). Both of these terms stand for the use of euphemism as a means of influencing people‘s perception of facts.

30

3.2.2 Loaded Syntax

Apart from in words, Bolinger claims, hidden bias can also be found in syntax. This happens when ―the definition of ‗syntactic pattern‘ is not conceived too abstractly, and one is permitted to class as loaded a pattern that is rarely used without some special intent beyond informing, inquiring, and commanding‖ (1980: 84). Bolinger mentions in particular four forms of loaded syntax. These are tagging, the use of passive voice, bias by the suffixes –able and –ible, and experiencer deletion (1980: 84-88). Tagging (e.g. in the sentence She is French, isn't she?) can be considered as loaded since it ―pleads for agreement by pretending to offer the hearer a choice between a positive and a negative answer‖ (Bolinger 1980: 84). As for the use of the passive voice, Bolinger (1980) claims that it can be at times perceived as loaded since it does not require the speaker/writer to be explicit about the performer of the action (1980: 58). Although he maintains that there are many cases when omitting the agent is not automatically deceitful, e.g. when the audience is already aware of who the agent is or in cases where the agent is not important (1980: 86), he emphasizes the cases when the passive can be used on purpose in order to conceal the agent, as in the sentence People should not try to live where they are not wanted (1980: 86). As he points out, in addition to avoiding responsibility, this can also give higher authority to the speaker and make his or her statements seem less arbitrary (Bolinger 1980: 86). In relation to passivisation, Bolinger and Sears (1981: 151) mention the expression to be supposed to, as in the sentence John was supposed to be here at ten o’clock. Again, the agent is not expressed, and we thus do not know by whom he is supposed. Bolinger‘s third type of loaded syntax is the use of the suffixes –able and –ible (1980: 87). He suggests that the use of words ending with the suffix -able/-ible is actually a ―curious implicit passive that takes an agent more or less for granted‖ (1981: 87). Again, there is no specification of the agent of the action and it can thus be inferred that ―(not)-able for me (or us)‖ means ―(not)-able for anyone‖ (1980: 87). He then mentions several examples such as likable, undesirable, detestable, abominable, admirable, intolerable, etc. as in the sentence Undesirable events should be reported (1980: 87). This allows the speaker to avoid mentioning to whom these events are undesirable.

31

The last form of loaded syntax listed by Bolinger (1980) is experiencer deletion. This concept is further developed by Bolinger and Sears (1981: 151), who claim that ―certain impersonal verbs carry with them a reference to a personal standpoint, that of the one who undergoes the experience (e.g. seem, appear, strike)‖. And out of these verbs, there are some which do not require the mentioning of the experiencer. Sears and Bolinger claim that although we cannot say It strikes that he is asking too much, we can say e.g. It seems (to me) that he is asking too much. In this sentence we can choose whether we omit the experiencer or not (1981: 151). Bolinger (1980: 88) mentions some other examples: look, be surprising, be obvious, be amusing, stand to reason, be convincing, etc. A fifth common type of loaded syntax, not discussed by Bolinger, could be added, namely nominalization. Fairclough (1989: 124) describes nominalization as ―a process converted into noun (or a multi-word compound noun)‖. He claims that this reduced form enables the omission of some of the meaning of the original sentence. Indication of the timing of the process, modality and agent/patient are missing. Causality and responsibility are thus left unclear (1989: 124). In relation to loaded syntax, Bolinger and Sears (1981) use the term non- neutrality in grammar. According to them, certain grammatical patterns might be misused in order to leave something unsaid. Thus, there are several grammatical devices which ―lend themselves better than others to suasive language‖. They call the misuse of these grammatical devices ―syntactic exploitation‖ (Sears and Bolinger 1981: 151). The main purpose of these methods, they claim, is usually to avoid mentioning the agent of an action and thus avoid responsibility for the action.

3.2.3 Code Switching

Sears and Bolinger (1981) describe code or style switching as one of the techniques commonly used by speakers/writers when they want to make themselves clearly understood. They attempt to get closer to the hearer/reader by switching codes and using the language the hearer/reader would use or language which is easier to understand for the hearer/reader. According to Bolinger and Sears (1981: 149) it is ―aimed at clearing the channel‖. But it can also work in the opposite way. Code

32 switching can also serve to obstruct the channel. The speaker/writer can deliberately change the style in order to deceive and disguise (Bolinger and Sears 1981: 149). Bolinger and Sears (1981) claim that in such a case code switching can be used not only for purposes such as solidarity, social distance, prestige, concealment, but also in order to impress. The precondition for the successful use of the technique is that people are willing to confuse complication and profundity. Thus, where ―profound thoughts make for hard words, hard words pass for profound thoughts‖ (Bolinger and Sears 1981: 151). They call this code by the term officialese, as an overall term for the language used by bureaucrats. This is at variance with D‘Angelo (1989), for whom officialese is a special kind of language, used only by public officials other than government bureaucrats (see 3.1.3). Another terminological discrepancy can be found in Bolinger (1980), who uses the terms jargon, gobbledegook, doubletalk and doublespeak interchangeably and considers them as synonyms, unlike Lutz (1990) and D‘Angelo (1989) for whom jargon is a particular kind of doublespeak or doubletalk and gobbledygook is a special kind of jargon (see 3.1.3). It is thus clear that the division of doublespeak, its various forms and the names for its various forms are not household and different authors use different terminology for the same language phenomena.

3.3 Division of Doublespeak

Based on the description above, I suggest dividing doublespeak into three main categories: lexical doublespeak, stylistic doublespeak, and syntactic doublespeak. All of them can be used with four objectives: to intensify one‘s own good, downplay one‘s own bad, intensify others‘ bad, and downplay others‘ good (see chapter 3.1.2).

Lexical doublespeak corresponds to Leech‘s associative engineering and can be further subdivided into two parts as described by Sears and Bolinger (see chapter 3.2): favorable and unfavorable naming which covers hidden bias and purr and snarl words (see chapter 4.5) and elevation and degradation of meaning which covers euphemisms and dysphemisms. However, it is important to state that the use of dysphemisms as a

33

form of doublespeak is very rare in politics. As they did not occur in the corpus, they are not included in the analysis.

↑ Intensify own good ↑ ↑ Intensify others’ bad ↑

Favorable or unfavorable naming

Hidden bias Purr or snarl words

Elevation of meaning

Euphemisms

↓ Downplay own bad ↓ ↓ Downplay others’ good ↓

Stylistic doublespeak corresponds to Bolinger and Sears‘s code switching and covers the general category of jargon, which can be further subdivided into gobbledygook, bureaucratese and officialese as described by D‘Angelo (1989). Under the heading of stylistic doublespeak, the language which Lutz (1990) calls inflated can also be classified. All of these forms of stylistic doublespeak are expected to be used in order to intensify one‘s own or other‘s bad or downplay one‘s own or other‘s good. It depends on the particular language and the context in which it is used.

↑ Intensify own good ↑ ↑ Intensify others’ bad ↑

Jargon Gobbledygook Bureaucratese Officialese

Inflated lanugage

↓ Downplay own bad ↓ ↓ Downplay others’ good ↓

The last class is syntactic doublespeak, which corresponds to Bolinger‘s term loaded syntax and to Sears and Bolinger‘s term non-neutrality in grammar. Similarly to stylistic doublespeak, all of the forms can be used for any of the four purposes. They

34

include tagging, passivisation, nominalization, suffixes –able and –ible, and experience deletion.

↑ Intensify own good ↑ ↑ Intensify others’s bad ↑

Passivisation Nominalisation Suffix -able, -ible Experiencer Deletion Tagging

↓ Downplay own bad ↓ ↓ Downplay others’ good ↓

The following analysis focuses entirely on lexical doublespeak and its three main components, namely hidden bias, purr and snarl words, and euphemisms. Out of the three categories of doublespeak, lexical doublespeak is the one which can be considered as the most sophisticated and most difficult to identify. Consequently, the effect of this form of doublespeak on the electorate is the strongest and its potential to manipulate people‘s perception of reality and hence influence their political opinions is the highest.

35

4 Lexical Doublespeak

The appropriate outcome of the use of all the above mentioned forms of lexical doublespeak, i.e. purr and snarl words, hidden bias, and euphemisms, is strongly dependent on the expressivity and connotations these expressions have.

4.1 Kinds of Lexical Meaning

Lipka (1992: 63) points out the common binary distinction between denotation (denotative meaning) and connotation (connotative meaning). However, the distinction between denotation and connotation seems to be a more complex issue.

Lyons (1977: 50) distinguishes between three kinds of meaning: descriptive meaning, social meaning, and expressive meaning. While descriptive meaning, according to him, ―can be explicitly asserted or denied and, in the most favorable instances at least, […] can be objectively verified‖, the two other meanings, expressive and social, are, according to Lyons, not clear-cut and can actually be merged into one under the terms emotive, attitudinal, interpersonal, or expressive meaning (1977: 51). Lipka (1992: 60) describes these meanings as non-descriptive, non-conceptual, or non- denotative and shows their interrelation in the following diagram:

1. descriptive

2. social - interpersonal (emotive, ―expressive‖ …) 3. expressive

Lipka (1992: 61)

A somewhat different approach to meaning is taken by Leech (1990). He divides meaning (or communicative value) into seven different types: conceptual, connotative, social, affective, reflected, collocative, and thematic. Whereas two of them – conceptual

36 meaning (for which he also uses the term sense synonymously) and thematic meaning are clearly distinct and self-contained types of meaning, the other five types of meaning have a lot in common and are unified under the heading of associative meaning (Leech 1990). Lipka (1992: 46) shows this division in a diagram, where he divides meaning, or communicative value, into three groups (conceptual meaning or sense, associative meaning, and thematic meaning), with one of the groups (associative meaning) being further divided into five subgroups. There is, however, a slight terminological difference; Lipka uses the term stylistic instead of the term social, used by Leech.

1. conceptual m. (sense) a. connotative m. MEANING = b. stylistic m. COMMUNICATIVE 2. associative m. c. affective m. VALUE d. reflected m. 3. thematic m. e. collocative m.

Lipka (1992: 46)

Leech (1990) puts into opposition the first two kinds of meaning – conceptual (denotative, cognitive) meaning on the one hand, and associative meaning on the other. The third meaning, thematic meaning, is described by Leech as ―what is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer organizes the message, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis‖ (1990: 19) and is ―mainly a matter of choice between alternative grammatical construction‖ (1990: 19), such as the choice between the use of the active or passive voice. This kind of meaning corresponds to communicative dynamism and can thus be considered a matter of functional sentence perspective (cf. Firbas 1992). The five above-mentioned separate kinds of meaning for which Leech uses the summary term associative meaning share common features by which they are distinguished from their opposite – conceptual meaning. According to Leech (1990: 18), they ―all have the same open-ended, variable character, and lend themselves to analysis in terms of scales of ranges, rather than in discrete either-this-or-that terms‖.

37

Leech describes the connotative meaning as ―the communicative value an expression has by virtue of what it refers to, over and above its purely conceptual content‖ (1990: 12), connotation being ―the ‗real world experience‘ one associates with an expression when one uses or hears it (1990: 13). Social meaning is, according to Leech, related to social circumstances in which the words are uttered and is closely related to ―different dimensions and levels of style within the same language‖ (1990: 14) such as dialect, formal language, slang, as well as e.g. language of advertising or the style of a particular author, etc. (Leech 1990: 14). Besides this, the social meaning encompasses what is otherwise known as the illocutionary force (cf. Alston 2000; Mey 2001) Affective meaning stands for the personal attitude of the speaker to the listener or to the subject of the utterance. The attitude is reflected in the language that the speaker uses. Reflected meaning can be encountered ―in cases of multiple conceptual meaning, when one sense of a word forms part of our response to another sense‖ (Leech 1990: 16). Leech demonstrates the reflected meaning on taboo words, such as erection or ejaculation, claiming that these words do have sexual associations even when used in non-sexual contexts, and as a result of this ‗taboo contamination‘ cease to be used in these non-sexual contexts (1990: 17). The last meaning belonging to the summary term of associative meaning, i.e. collocative meaning, reflects ―the associations a word acquires on account of the meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment‖ (Leech 1990: 17).

Another very important distinction between conceptual and associative meaning, according to Leech, is that associative meaning is less stable than conceptual meaning. While conceptual meaning is shared by users of the same language, associative meaning varies with each individual‘s experience (Leech 1990: 43). This may lead to situations when the associative meaning of words is used for conveying attitudes and emotions. Leech (1990: 43) mentions two such situations: 1) as associative meaning varies from one person to another, its use can cause miscommunication or misunderstanding, and 2) readers/listeners may be misled by associative meaning (in this case particularly, affective meaning) which is predominant over conceptual meaning, and as a result they are not able to appraise the information properly. Leech (1990: 43) claims that the second situation may be dangerous as it can be misused in order to influence people‘s opinions and perception of reality and favorable

38 or unfavorable words can thus be chosen in order to manipulate people‘s view on certain things or issues. He also mentions several examples of expressions in which the associative meaning is so strong that the conceptual meaning very often seems to be almost irrelevant (e.g. freedom, democracy, fascism, communism). Hayakawa (1949) calls these expressions snarl words and purr words. It is thus quite clear that there is considerable difference between Lyons‘s and Leech‘s perception of meaning. However, even though their categorization of meaning is fairly complex, Lipka (1992: 62) observes that both divisions actually do match the customary distinguishing between denotation and connotation, the latter corresponding to Lyons‘s social and expressive meaning, and to Leech‘s associative meaning. The term connotation can thus be used as a summary term for these specific kinds of meaning. Its definition can be taken from Allan (2001: 147):

The connotations of a word or longer expression are semantic effects that arise from encyclopedic knowledge about its denotation and also from experiences, beliefs, and prejudices about the contexts in which the expression is typically used.

4.2 Expressivity, Evaluation, and Evaluativeness

The above-described broad distinction between denotation and connotation is not sufficient. A different binary opposition is discussed by Cruse (1986: 271), who distinguishes meaning in respect of semantic mode into propositional mode and expressive mode. This is shown on two seemingly similar sentences: a) ―Arthur has lost the key‖, and b) ―Arthur has lost the blasted key‖, where the word blasted carries only expressive meaning, whereas the first sentence is purely propositional. Cruse (1986: 274) goes on explaining that this kind of meaning usually ―conveys some sort of emotion or attitude – doubt, certainty, hope, expectation, surprise, contempt, disappointment, admiration, flippancy, seriousness, and so on‖. Both expressive traits and propositional traits can be found in one particular expression, and Cruse (1986: 274) claims that communication without expressive meaning does not virtually exist, that ―every communicative utterance must transmit as part of its meaning an indication of intended propositional attitude‖. This view is supported by Daneš (1994), who insists on the necessity to ―assume that any utterance or higher discourse unit has an emotional value in its communicative

39 situation‖ (1994: 258). Daneš claims that it is not possible to perceive ―normal‖ speech utterances as emotionally neutral, and those that are ―emotionally colored‖ as marked or special (1994: 258).

Cruse (1986) also claims that words carry expressive capacity, which may come through only in particular contexts. Thus, apart from inherently expressive expressions, there are expressions that have inherent expressive potential (1986: 276). As an example, he compares the word baby with the words infant or neonate. Whereas the latter two are not capable of expressive use, the word baby has fairly high expressive potential, which is manifested e.g. in the sentence ―Oh, look – a baby! Isn‘t he adorable?‖ (Cruse 1986: 275-276). The same concept is discussed by Palmer (1981: 90), who, instead of the term expressive meaning, uses the term emotive or evaluative meaning. However, he maintains that this emotive meaning cannot be separated from the cognitive meaning and, on the contrary, makes an integral part of it (Palmer 1986: 90). Cruse (1986: 277) considers propositional meaning and expressive (emotional, evaluative) meaning as the most important ones, as they are used and directly manipulated by the speaker in order to transmit his or her intended message. This view is supported by Palmer (1981: 90), who claims that playing with emotive meaning is used in order to imply approval or disapproval and influence attitudes. He considers this a subtle way of saying that something is good or bad (Palmer 1981: 90). Daneš (1994: 259) suggests evaluating the emotion in discourse on a small number of different polar dimensions with ―distinctive positions on the scale between their poles, and with different degrees of intensity‖ (cf. Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum 1975). According to Daneš (1994), however, in many cases only one such dimension is sufficient, the two opposing poles being positive and negative (1994: 259). The concept of evaluativeness is discussed by Čermák (2010). He describes evaluativeness as a phenomenon on the speaker – hearer axis, its typical feature being the binary character on the scale plus – minus (2010: 118). The objective of evaluativeness is on the one side to express the positive or negative attitude of the speaker, but on the other side also to influence the perception of reality by the hearer (Čermák 2010: 118). Despite insisting that evaluativeness is strongly subjective, Čermák (2010: 119) admits that it can also be objective in cases when it is based on an existing generally

40 accepted norm. Thus, evaluativeness can be comprehended as the expression of evaluation of reality on the general good – bad scale (Čermák 2010: 127-128). A similar concept, the one of evaluation, is discussed e.g. by Hunston and Thompson (2000), and Martin and White (2005). Hunston and Thompson (2000: 5) define evaluation broadly as a ―cover term for the expression of the speaker or writer‘s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities or propositions that he or she is talking about‖. This attitude may, according to Hunston and Thompson (2000: 5), be related to values such as certainty, obligation, or desirability and can be expressed by both lexical and grammatical means. It can thus be concluded that while evaluation is a complex concept, related to the whole utterance or text, evaluativeness can be considered as a particular feature of a lexical unit and as such forms a specific demonstration of evaluation.

4.3 Types of Meaning in Relation to Doublespeak

For the purpose of the analysis of lexical doublespeak, I thus use three basic concepts, derived from the above-explained approaches: denotation, connotation and evaluativeness. The first thing necessary in order to be able to analyze doublespeak expressions is to find out their denotative meaning. For the purposes of this analysis the Oxford Dictionary (available at http://oxforddictionaries.com/) has been used. As suggested by Palmer (1981: 90), evaluativeness is an integral part of the denotative meaning and is inherently encompassed in it. Connotation, on the other hand, is a different kind of meaning standing on its own in contrast to denotation. Positive or negative evaluativeness and connotation can both be considered the ground for manipulation of people‘s perception of reality. However, the main difference between these two is that whereas in the case of evaluativeness, evaluative judgments are inherent in the denotative meaning of the expression and the impact does not change in dependence on the hearer, in the case of connotative meaning, these evaluative judgments depend on the listener, on his or her experience and each listener or hearer might understand the utterance in a different way. It is possible to state relatively objectively, whether an expression evaluates reality in a positive or negative way, while connotation is strongly subjective.

41

It is virtually impossible to find out the objective connotative meanings of words. Stubbs (1996: 172) claims that the best way to find out the connotations of a word is by employing a large corpus. He asserts that the associations and connotations a word has are shown by the characteristic collocations which occur with the word. Further, he claims that ―meaning is not regarded as a purely mental phenomenon, but is analyzed distributionally on the bases of observable, objective textual evidence‖ (1996: 174). A large corpus can be considered as such objective textual evidence. Stubbs thus suggests looking for the ―absolute frequency of each collocation, since what we are looking for is recurrent phrases which encode culturally important concepts‖ (1996: 174). This is the method which was used for the identification of connotations of biased adjectives and nouns as well as of purr and snarl words.

When seeking the connotations of adjectives and nouns, the aim is to find out which other adjectives these words occur with, as the collocating adjectives express the quality which is typical of the adjective or noun and often appear along with it. As far as adjectives are concerned, relevant collocates are considered adjectives which occur within the span of two words to the left or two words to the right of the keyword. In the case of nouns, only one qualifying adjective preceding the noun is taken into consideration. The collocates are subsequently selected in dependence on the context. For example, the most frequent collocating adjectives of the word dictator are Iraqi, brutal, military, communist, Soviet, late, and ruthless. It can be observed that the collocates that can be considered as relevant in this case are the adjectives brutal and ruthless. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has been used as the source of collocates. This corpus is composed of more than 450 million words from spoken language, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers, and academic journals from the years 1990 – 2013. It is thus made up from various kinds of sources and is considered to be the largest currently available corpus of American English (Davies 2008).

42

In the analysis of purr and snarl words an additional source of collocations is used, namely the Oxford Collocation Dictionary (available online at http://www.ozdic.com/). A somewhat different method has to be employed for the identification of biased meanings of verbs. Most biased verbs designate actions which are automatically viewed as positive or negative (e.g. win x lose, build x destroy, etc.). The bias thus does not consist of positive or negative connotations, but rather of the speaker‘s description of a fact as good or bad without giving the listener the option to decide about the goodness or badness himself/herself (Bolinger, 1980: 80). It is thus necessary to identify the positive – negative pair of verbs by finding the opposite meaning of the used verb, i.e. its antonym. These are taken from the Oxford Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms. Moreover, antonyms have proven to be useful also in the case of some adjectives, as many of them can also be considered as being on the extreme ends of the positive – negative scale.

43

4.4 Hidden Bias

4.4.1 Introduction

According to Bolinger (1980: 75), one of the basic kinds of expressing something in a favorable or unfavorable manner is what he calls hidden bias. He describes biased language as language which evades responsibility and claims that there is hardly any sentence in normal speech which lacks bias as it is very pervasive (1980: 71). He distinguishes between several kinds of bias. Apart from euphemisms and dysphemisms as such, he speaks about hidden bias in adjectives, nouns and verbs (1980: 75-82). This means that these words imply a positive or a negative attitude; they evaluate reality in a particular way and can thus be considered as loaded. Bolinger (1980) asserts that adjectives are the most prone to hidden bias. This can be explained by one of the qualities of typical English adjectives – they are scaled. Each adjective represents some quality, but this quality is not always the same. There can be ‗more‘ or ‗less‘ of it and thus it can be perceived as ‗better‘ or ‗worse‘ (not necessarily respectively). Then, the adjective very easily loses its neutrality (Bolinger 1980). He demonstrates this assertion with several examples. The immediate associative meaning is indicated in the brackets: long (and tiresome), sweet (and lovely), tall (and handsome) (1980: 76). Nouns are supposed to be less prone to hidden bias than adjectives and when they are, it is usually when they are used in a function which resembles adjectives, i.e. they can usually also be compared for degree (Bolinger 1980). He demonstrates it on the following examples (1980:77): I didn’t think she was so dumb! (adjective) and I didn’t think she was such a dumbbell! (noun). Bolinger (1980) introduces two particular kinds of biased nouns: epithets and syllogisms. He explains the biased use of epithets on the sentence Did you see the idiot try to cross the street ahead of me? (Bolinger 1980: 77). In this sentence the speaker is speaking about a person, but by calling this person an idiot s/he is insinuating that the person is an idiot. After uttering such a sentence it is almost impossible for the hearer to defend the person. In the majority of cases (especially when the hearer is not concerned enough), s/he tends to agree with the statement and any kind of resistance is improbable (Bolinger 1980). This theory can be transferred into the field of politics. When a

44 politician utters a sentence like, The terrorist must be punished, everybody agrees with this statement and it is unlikely that somebody will object to the person being a terrorist. This would have been different if the proposition had been more explicit: The man has to be punished. He is a terrorist. In such a case it would have been much easier to defend him by saying: No, he’s not a terrorist. This is, according to Bolinger (1980), taken one step further when the word idiot from the previous passage is replaced by the word female. Then we have the following sentence: Did you see that female try to cross the street ahead of me? In this case, as Bolinger (1980: 78) suggests, we have a whole syllogism: ―Did you see that person…? Said person is a female. Females are (stupid, unreliable, troublesome, etc). Therefore said person is stupid (unreliable, troublesome, etc.)‖. Again, similarly to adjectives, the associative meaning or connotations can be inferred from collocations which most often go with the noun. These collocations express the quality which is typical of the noun and often appears along with it. This is called ‗salient feature copying‘ by linguist J. P. Maher (Bolinger 1980). Examples of salient feature copying are e.g. stubborn ox, proud father, scared rabbit, dirty tramp, etc. (Bolinger 1980: 78). Consequently, Bolinger claims that the indirectness of syllogism makes it more dangerous than epithet. It is even less probable to object to the sentence Did you see that female try to cross that street ahead of me? No one would ever object to the fact that the person crossing the street is a female (Bolinger 1980: 78). As verbs designate a process and a process is usually not stable enough to be apt to be agreed or disagreed with or to develop positive or negative associations, verbs are less hospitable to bias than adjectives and nouns (Bolinger 1980). However, Bolinger (1980: 80) lists a special kind of verbs that designate actions which are automatically viewed as positive or negative. The bias then consists of the speaker‘s description of a fact as good or bad without giving the listener the option to decide about the goodness or badness him/herself (Bolinger 1980). The following pairs of verbs can be given as examples: improve – deteriorate, praise – blame, build – destroy, help – hinder, win – lose, and succeed – fail (Bolinger 1980: 80).

45

4.4.2 Hidden Bias in the Debates

According to the context in which hidden bias is used by the presidential candidates, it can be categorized into thirteen thematic groups (see table below). The first three of them, i.e. success in Iraq, staying or withdrawing from Iraq and enemies, are directly connected to American military operations in Iraq (and in some cases also in Afghanistan). Such biased expressions can thus logically only be found in the debates of 2004 and 2008; there is only one exceptional case, when George W. Bush speaks about Saddam Hussein in the debates in 2000. The remaining ten topics are more general and they include issues such as foreign policy, direction of politics, patriotism, co-workers and candidates’ background, security, social, health and education policy, American economy, resistance to interest groups, environment and abortion.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Success in Iraq 0 40 36 76 0 27 0 27 Staying or Withdrawing 0 69 15 84 0 23 0 23 from Iraq Enemies 1 29 0 30 0 11 0 11 Foreign Policy 11 8 7 26 3 12 5 20 Direction of Politics 11 3 51 65 24 43 17 84 Patriotism 3 4 2 9 3 4 2 9 Co-workers and 2 0 18 20 0 7 3 10 Candidates’ Background Security 1 25 1 27 0 7 0 7 Social, Health and 24 5 11 40 4 0 2 6 Education Policy American Economy 0 12 0 12 0 1 7 8 Resistance to Interest 2 0 0 2 15 0 0 15 Groups Environment 4 2 5 11 7 0 4 11 Abortion 4 2 2 8 2 0 0 2 Total 63 199 148 410 58 135 40 233

46

In the analysis, it is important to take into account the differences between hidden bias and purr words and snarl words analyzed below (see chapter 4.5). Whereas purr and snarl words express certain values and are very general and abstract and in most of the cases used independently of the context, hidden bias is much more concrete and is context-dependent. Thus, the same word can be used several times by the candidates in the debates, but is considered as biased only in some contexts, depending on whether there is any hidden or additional meaning to what is actually being said. In other words, a purr word is always a purr word, whereas a biased word can be considered as biased in one sentence, but not biased at all and perfectly objective in another sentence used by the same candidate. As evidenced by the following graph, hidden bias is used more by Republican candidates, and it was most extensively used in the presidential debates of 2004. On the other hand, Barack Obama uses it the least out of all the candidates.

199

148 135

63 58 Republican Candidates

40 Democratic Candidates

2000 2004 2008

Graph 1: Hidden Bias

Not only is hidden bias context-dependent, but it is also election-specific and candidate-specific. Each period is distinguished by certain biased words and only some of them appear in two or three different periods. And even if they do, the context might not be the same, and thus the hidden meaning is not always the same either. The

47 following analysis shows how certain words can be misused in order to support one‘s opinions and enhance the impact they have on the listeners.

4.4.2.1 Success in Iraq

The opponents argue whether American troops should stay in Iraq, or whether they should withdraw from this country. Republican candidates are for staying, whereas Democratic candidates are for withdrawing. Expressions such as to win, victory, to succeed, successful, defeat, to fail and failed are used by George W. Bush, John Kerry and John McCain to persuade the public that their suggestions and plans are better than their opponent‘s; especially Republican candidates imply that if they win the elections, America will succeed, whereas if a Democratic candidate wins, America is going to be defeated and it will be a failure.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Win 0 12 7 19 0 17 0 17 Victory 0 2 4 6 0 1 0 1 Succeed 0 13 11 24 0 5 0 5 Successful 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Defeat 0 12 12 24 0 0 0 0 Fail 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 Failed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 40 36 76 0 27 0 27

Win

The verb to win is used extensively by both candidates in 2004, and the use of this word is essential in the fight over the future of American troops in Iraq. For George W. Bush, only staying in Iraq and the continuation of American military presence there means winning, and he claims that this will not happen under John Kerry‘s leadership. On the other hand, John Kerry insinuates that the president does not have a plan to win the peace and that the mission does not necessarily have to continue in order to be able to say that the United States has won. Kerry often uses this verb in the collocation to win the peace.

48

Ex.: I don't see how you can win in Iraq if you don't believe we should be there in the first place. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves. (John Kerry) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. be successful or victorious in (a positive contest or conflict) fail, lose 2. acquire or secure as a result of a positive contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor

There is a substantial difference in how the two candidates use this word, however. Whereas George W. Bush speaks about winning the war in Iraq or winning the war on terror, i.e. the first meaning of the word, Kerry speaks in most cases about winning the peace, i.e. the second meaning of the word in the table above. The approach of George W. Bush is thus more selfish, because he wants America to be the winner, whereas John Kerry speaks about winning the peace, which would actually be a victory for all those who are involved in the conflict. In any case, both candidates imply that their opponent will lose this conflict and the mission is or will be a failure.

In 2008, John McCain uses the word to win in exactly the same context as George W, Bush does in 2004, i.e. when speaking about American troops in Iraq. He uses it seven times.

Ex.: And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq. (John McCain) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. be successful or victorious in positive fail, lose (a contest or conflict)

49

The purpose is to show that America is close to the victory in Iraq. This is demonstrated by the use of the present continuous tense when McCain says that ―we are winning in Iraq‖ or that ―they are winning‖ by which he means the troops. A special way of manipulation of what people think about this issue is when he claims that the soldiers themselves want to stay in Iraq, saying that they want to win and beg him to let them stay in Iraq and win. The sentence is a mixture of biased verbs and a purr word kid (see chapter 4.5.3.3).

Ex.: I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards, we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don't want our kids coming back here. (John McCain)

Claiming that the soldiers want to stay in Iraq has much more force than if he said that he wants it himself. The public probably expects that the soldiers who have direct experience with fighting in Iraq know best whether it is desirable to stay there or not. Besides, if the soldiers themselves want to stay there, it means that the situation in Iraq is not as dangerous and bad for them as one might think.

Victory

The noun victory is analogous to the verb to win, the difference being a much lower frequency of the use of the noun than the verb. Both presidential candidates in 2004 suggest that they are the ones who will lead the United States to victory.

Ex.: And our alliance is strong. That's the plan for victory. And when Iraq is free, America will be more secure. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: And I'm going to lead those troops to victory. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) an act of defeating an enemy or great, military, opponent in a battle, game, or other positive defeat, loss major, big, competition decisive

50

According to the most common collocates, in particular great, major or decisive, the noun victory seems to be a triumphant word, and the one who leads a nation to victory should be celebrated. Each of the candidates wants to be identified with such a triumph, implying that the other one will not be able to achieve this goal.

John McCain also uses the word victory in 2008 when speaking about Iraq. Again, the word victory is used in exactly the same meaning as the verb to win. In three cases out of four, it is used together with the word honor:

Ex.: And we will come home with victory and with honor. (John McCain)

The fourth use of the word victory has more or less the same meaning, but he uses it in a metaphor by which he puts more stress on his belief that finishing the war in Iraq, which Obama wants, is a bad decision for the United States.

Ex.: But if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and adopt Senator Obama's plan, then we will have a wider war and it will make things more complicated throughout the region, including in Afghanistan. (John McCain)

In any case, playing with the word victory helps persuade people that withdrawing from Iraq when the successful ending for America is so close would be a pity.

Succeed

The word succeed is used similarly to the word win; the candidates speak about succeeding in Iraq, claiming that they themselves can or will succeed, whereas their opponent can or will not. In 2004, the word is used predominantly by George W. Bush, who uses it thirteen times. John Kerry employs this word only five times.

Ex.: Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't believe we can succeed and somebody who says the war where we are is a "mistake." (George W. Bush)

Ex.: Now, we can succeed, but I don't believe this President can. (John Kerry)

51 denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms achieve the desired aim or result positive fail

An important aspect of the verb to succeed is its vagueness, as the meaning is ―to achieve the desired aim or result‖, but this aim or result is not defined and can thus vary according to who uses this word. In any case, not succeeding means failing, and both of the candidates want to persuade the people that they are the ones succeeding and the other one is the one who will fail. In 2008, this word is used by John McCain in a biased way eleven times, again always in relation to Iraq. It is used when speaking about a particular strategy, about the troops, the mission, and generally about us, that we will succeed in sentences such as:

Ex.: And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy. (John McCain)

Similarly as in the year 2004, the purpose of using this word is to oppose Barack Obama‘s intention to withdraw the American troops posted there. In most of the cases, McCain uses the present perfect (they have succeeded) and the future tense (they will succeed). The result of this is the impression that it would be rather impetuous and a pity to withdraw the troops now as they are very close to winning the war in Iraq.

Successful

The expression successful is used three times by John Kerry, who says that it is possible to be successful in Iraq.

Ex.: I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) black, new, accomplishing a desired aim or positive unsuccessful American, result young

52

By admitting that it is possible to be successful in Iraq in case Kerry becomes the president, he is insinuating that George W. Bush has not been so far successful in this. Kerry thus implies that President Bush is not accomplishing the desired aim or result, but by saying it this way, it is possible to avoid mentioning exactly what the desired aim or result is.

Defeat

The word defeat is used as both a verb and a noun and is again employed similarly to the verbs win and succeed analyzed above. President Bush, who employs the word twelve times, speaks about defeating the enemy, the ideology of hatred, and the tyranny. All of these are rather vague, negative labels.

Ex.: The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) an instance of defeating or being positive or humiliating, victory defeated negative crushing

George W. Bush connects the freedom in Iraq and also in Afghanistan with defeating an enemy, who is not clearly defined. This is supposed to persuade people that American military missions in these countries are necessary, because otherwise America will lose and he implies that this is what is going to happen if John Kerry, or anyone who does not agree with American military missions in Iraq, becomes the next president of the USA.

The word defeat is also used by John McCain in connection to the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. It is used three times more than its opposite, the positively biased noun victory, which is itself employed four times by John McCain.

Ex.: And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat. (John McCain)

53

The above table shows that the most common description of the word defeat is humiliating and crushing, which makes this word quite strong. It is important to realize, however, that by defeat McCain actually means withdrawing from Iraq, which does not have to be necessarily taken as something humiliating. However, by calling this by the word defeat, he imposes this point of view on the electors and expects them not to want that.

Fail

The verb to fail is used by George W. Bush in the following sentence:

Ex.: And if Iraq were to fail, it would be a haven for terrorists, and there would be money, and the world would be much more dangerous. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms be unsuccessful in achieving one‘s goal negative succeed

As Bush keeps connecting military presence in Iraq with a successful fight against terrorism, the above sentence could be reworded as follows: if Kerry becomes president, the world will be much more dangerous, because he will fail in Iraq, i.e. he will withdraw American troops from there.

In 2008, John McCain uses the word fail twice, which is not much compared to how many times he uses its opposite, the positively biased verb to succeed (11x).

Ex.: We seem to come full circle again. Senator Obama still doesn't quite understand -- or doesn't get it -- that if we fail in Iraq, it encourages al Qaeda. They would establish a base in Iraq. (John McCain)

John McCain also makes direct connection between withdrawing the troops proposed by Obama and failing, i.e. being unsuccessful. Throughout the debates he implies that staying in Iraq means winning the war and withdrawing from Iraq means failing.

54

Failed

John Kerry speaks about a failed Iraq being the result of George W. Bush‘s presidency.

Ex.: We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) successful, not functioning properly negative economic prospering

This claim refutes Bush‘s explicit or implicit claims that if Kerry wins the elections, American military actions in Iraq will end up as a failure and everything that has been done there so far was vain. This sentence has exactly the opposite meaning: American military presence in Iraq has so far been a failure and only if Kerry becomes the president, Iraq will be a prospering country and the mission will be able to be considered as successful.

4.4.2.2 Staying or Withdrawing from Iraq

The argument about the war in Iraq gives rise to the most numerous list of biased words out of all the topics. Logically, these are only used in the presidential debates of 2004 and 2008. In 2004, both George W. Bush and John Kerry use the biased words free, dangerous and worry. Besides, George W. Bush uses the words unpopular, optimistic, brave, long, phenomenal, pessimistic and reformer; John Kerry only uses one additional word – the verb to rush. In 2008, John McCain uses the adjectives dangerous, young, great, and brave and young; Barack Obama does not use hidden bias in this context at all.

55

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Free 0 35 0 35 0 2 0 2 Dangerous 0 5 2 7 0 12 0 12 Worry 0 8 0 8 0 1 0 1 Rush 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 Unpopular 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 Optimistic 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 Brave 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 Long 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Phenomenal 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pessimistic 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Reformer 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Young 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 Great 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 Brave and young 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Total 0 69 17 86 0 23 0 23

Free

The word free is used almost exclusively by George W. Bush – he uses it thirty- five times, while John Kerry only uses it twice. Bush speaks about free Iraq and Iraqis, free Afghanistan, free nations, free society, free Muslims, and also about free elections. The adjective free is very closely related to the purr word freedom, which can be considered as one of the main American values and a concept that is worth to fight for.

Ex.: I believe that God wants everybody to be free. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of positive confined, another captive, fair, open, a) (of a state or its citizens or obstructive, democratic institutions) subject neither to positive occupied foreign domination nor to despotic government

56

The reason for the overabundant use of the adjective free is thus to justify American military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and is supposed to help George W. Bush to disprove the claims of the Democrats that attacking Iraq was a bad decision for the Republican administration. George W. Bush‘s aim is a free world, which is defined by Wasserman and Hausrath (2006: 68) as ―a hackneyed political slogan for that group of nations whose sympathies are allied to American interests, whether their citizens enjoy freedom or are ruled by despots‖. However, these American interests are never mentioned by any of the presidential candidates and they believe that they are acting in the interest of the people in the particular countries attacked by Americans.

Dangerous

George W. Bush uses the word dangerous in two contexts: either when claiming that the world would be more dangerous with Saddam Hussein, or when accusing his Democratic opponent of having dangerous opinions or attitudes. The latter is also the way John McCain uses this word in 2008. In 2004, Bush uses the word five times and Kerry twelve times.

Ex.: And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power and the world would be more dangerous. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. (George W. Bush)

John Kerry uses the adjective dangerous more frequently than his opponent. According to him, the world is now more dangerous; Iran, Iraq and North Korea are now more dangerous, and he also speaks about these being dangerous times.

Ex.: The world is more dangerous today. The world is more dangerous today because the President didn't make the right judgments. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) difficult, new, able or likely to cause harm or negative harmless, safe armed, violent, injury illegal

57

Claiming that the world is more dangerous because President Bush did not make the right judgments implies that Kerry himself would make better judgments and the world would be safe. As for George W. Bush, he claims the exact opposite. Saying that the world would be more dangerous with Saddam Hussein means that, thanks to the war in Iraq initiated by Bush, the world is now a safer place. By claiming that Kerry‘s opinions are dangerous, Bush is trying to frighten the public: if Kerry becomes president, he will have dangerous attitudes and the people will thus not be safe.

Worry

Although the word worry is used by both presidential candidates, it is more commonly found in the lexicon of George W. Bush, who uses it eight times, while John Kerry only uses it once.

Ex.: I'm worried. I'm worried. I'm worried about our country. And all I can tell you is, every day I know that there's people working overtime, doing the very best they can. And the reason I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms feel or cause to feel anxious or troubled negative --- about actual or potential problems

The fact that George W. Bush, who is the president of the country, is worried can be understood in such a way that he suggests that ordinary people living in this country should also be worried. And as he is worried of the same thing as they are, they have something in common, a common goal, to get rid of these worries. And it is logical that he tries to imply that he, unlike his opponent, knows how best to do it.

Rush

John Kerry repeats that George W. Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

58

Ex.: I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. (John Kerry) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms move with urgent haste negative ---

The word rush is defined as ―move with urgent haste‖, while one of the most common collocates of the word haste is undue. The use of the word rush can be explained as meaning that it was an ill-judged mistake from President Bush to start the war. Kerry does not imply that he would himself not go into the war, but that he would be more prudent.

Unpopular

The word unpopular is used six times, only by George W. Bush. He speaks about things he had done that were unpopular and stresses that he realizes the unpopularity of these political actions.

Ex.: I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular, but I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) fashionable, economic, not liked or popular negative popular controversial

The claim that he realizes that he did something that is unpopular stresses his belief that it was the right decision to make, because unpopular does not necessarily mean bad or wrong. On the contrary, one of the antonyms of unpopular is fashionable, and something that is fashionable at the moment might not be fashionable in the future. By admitting the unpopularity of his actions, Bush actually says that those who criticize him do not have the courage to do something that is right.

59

Optimistic

The word optimistic is used six times only by George W. Bush, and it is used when speaking about Iraq.

Ex.: Two days ago in the Oval Office, I met with the Finance Minister from Iraq. He came to see me, and he talked about how optimistic he was and the country was about heading toward elections. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning emotiveness antonyms (COCA) positive, hopeful, hopeful and confident about the pessimistic, positive upbeat, future depressing confident, cheerful

Using the word optimistic and claiming that the Iraqi finance minister is optimistic about the future of Iraq implies that the war is developing as Bush wanted it to, the United States are successful in spreading freedom around the world and that he is thus a good president who deserves to be reelected and finish the work he has started. On the other hand, electing his opponent might destroy this optimism.

Brave

The adjective brave is used four times, only by George W. Bush. In two cases, he is speaking about Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, and in the other two cases, in relation to American soldiers.

Ex.: Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: And I don't appreciate it when a candidate for President denigrates the contributions of these brave--brave soldiers. (George W. Bush)

60

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) new, young, ready to face and endure danger or positive cowardly little, strong, showing courage pain courageous

In both of these examples, he repeats the word brave twice in order to stress its importance. Praising the current Prime Minister of Iraq implies that he is better than the previous one, i.e. Saddam Hussein, and thus that American intervention in Iraq was worth it and was successful, because there is a positive outcome of it. As for the accusation that John Kerry denigrates the contributions of brave American soldiers, it is again connected to John Kerry being against American military presence in this country, and this is a way George W. Bush is trying to criticize Kerry, because people will probably take it negatively that he is denigrating somebody who is brave, and ready to face and endure danger for America‘s sake.

Long

The adjective long is used by both presidential candidates, but only George W. Bush uses it in relation to Iraq when he speaks about a long war.

Ex.: This war is a long, long war, and it requires steadfast determination. And it requires a complete understanding that we not only chase down Al Qaida, but we disrupt terrorists' safe havens as well as people who could provide the terrorists with support. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. lasting or taking a great amount neutral of time short long, hard 2. relatively great in extent neutral

It is interesting that definitely the most common collocate of the adjective long is the same word. It shows that the word is very often repeated twice, which is also the case of one of the above examples. It enhances the impression that something really is very long. In the case of the war, the collocate hard is also relevant. President Bush

61 speaks about steadfast determination and complete understanding of what is at stake in the war. The word long is thus used to support the argument that the war is not an impetuous decision and that he realizes the seriousness and the consequences of his decisions.

Phenomenal

Although the adjective phenomenal is used only once by George W. Bush, it is an important example of hidden bias. Bush uses it when speaking about the elections in Afghanistan.

Ex.: Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic, that if given a chance to be free, they will show up at the polls. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) remarkable or exceptional, positive ordinary economic especially exceptionally good

An average American would probably have no idea whether ten million is a lot or few. However, by using the adjective phenomenal, Bush imposes on them the view that it is an overwhelming number and the free elections are a huge success, especially thanks to the American invasion into Afghanistan. Consequently, we can believe that the invasion in Iraq will lead to the same success.

Pessimistic

The adjective pessimistic is used once by George W. Bush when he speaks about the Iraqi Finance Minister. In order to explain its use, it is necessary to show how the word is used by Bush in a somewhat wider context:

Ex.: Think about it. They're going from tyranny to elections. He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free. He said he was optimistic when he came here. Then he turned on

62 the TV and listened to the political rhetoric, and all of a sudden he was pessimistic. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) tending to see the worst aspect of optimistic, things or believe that the worst will negative optimistic cynical happen

Although George W. Bush does not mention whose political rhetoric the Finance Minister listened to, it is clear that he means the Democratic Party members, including John Kerry. This is a soft way to imply that the Democrats are against the freedom of the Iraqis, free elections in Iraq and in general, have bad and undesirable approach towards this issue.

Reformer

Even though the word reformer is only used once by George W. Bush, its use is quite important, and it makes up part of a longer utterance full of hidden bias.

Ex.: A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms collocates (COCA) reform: make changes in (something, especially an social positive --- institution or practice) in order to (reformer) improve it

The word reformer is used here together with other biased words, such as free, security, or the purr word freedom. Bush speaks about reformers in places like Iran, reformers being those Americans should be fond of and in favor of. We have to support

63 reformers, because they are good. It is not necessary to explain who they actually are, what they do and what in particular they reform.

There are three biased expressions related to the topic staying or withdrawing from Iraq in the debates of 2008. These expressions are the adjectives young, great, and brave and young.

Young

John McCain uses this word eight times when speaking about the army, the most common phrases being young Americans, young people, young men and women, and young marines, all of them actually meaning soldiers. However, the word soldier itself is never used.

Ex.: That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. having lived or existed for only a neutral beautiful, short time handsome, a) immature or inexperienced negative healthy, old, mature b) having the qualities associated bright, with young people, such as positive talented, enthusiasm and optimism attractive

Putting stress on the fact that these people are young (and thus also beautiful, healthy, bright, talented, etc.), as well as immature and inexperienced, but on the other hand enthusiastic and optimist, makes people feel more sorry for them. In addition, McCain uses the phrase young Americans instead of young people five times. The word people is rather neutral, whereas the word Americans is itself also biased, as it is very likely to evoke positive patriotic feelings, unlike the neutral word people and even more than the word soldiers.

64

Great

This adjective is used in a biased way by John McCain when speaking about how great some people are. Out of the five cases when McCain speaks about how great particular people are, he uses it three times when speaking about a great general, once when speaking about a great secretary of state, and once about great citizens.

Ex.: It was a stratagem. And that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan by this great general. (John McCain) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms collocates (COCA) 1. of ability, quality, or eminence little, small, positive considerably above average minor, modest, poor, a) informal very good; excellent positive American, big apathetic, half- b) informal (of a person) very positive hearted, skilled in a particular area miserable

The fact that this general is great gives him more authority in what he is doing. People who trust McCain then automatically trust the general, even though they do not know exactly what his qualities are and what exactly he is going to do in Afghanistan. The same is true about the secretary of state or the citizens.

Brave and young

The combination of the two adjectives brave and young is used twice by John McCain. Such a multiplication of biased adjectives used together makes the hidden bias even stronger.

Ex.: In Lebanon, I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said, if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect this situation? And said we shouldn't. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed. (John McCain)

Ex.: General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom. (John McCain)

65

Brave

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) young, strong, ready to face and endure danger or positive cowardly courageous, pain; showing courage smart

By claiming that President Reagan was his hero, McCain insinuates that Reagan was good. However, McCain himself is even better, because in this case Reagan was mistaken and McCain was right. By using the two biased adjectives, he makes it even truer that Reagan should have followed his advice. If the killed Marines were not brave and young, it would not be as serious as it is. In the latter sentence, the noun Americans is used again, but this time the Americans are not only young, but also brave (and young, strong, courageous, smart), i.e. courageous enough to face danger and fear. This sentence is interesting as a whole, as another purr word, i.e. freedom, is employed in the sentence and emphasized by repetition. The overall meaning of the sentence is thus influenced by two biased adjectives and two purr words, one of which is repeated in order to enhance its effect.

4.4.2.3 Enemies

The presidential candidates, in particular in 2004, use various negative biased nouns when speaking about their enemies, in particular about Saddam Hussein, but also about Osama bin Laden and in general about terrorists. Starting with George W. Bush calling Saddam Hussein a danger in 2000, both George W. Bush and John Kerry call him a threat in 2004, with Bush also speaking about him as a risk. Bush also speaks about the ideology of hate or ideology of hatred in relation to terrorists, and Kerry speaks about Osama bin Laden as the greatest criminal and terrorist.

66

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Danger 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Threat 0 25 0 25 0 10 0 10 Ideology of hate 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Risk 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Criminal and 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 terrorist Total 1 29 0 30 0 11 0 11

Danger

Already in 2000, long before the invasion into Iraq, George W. Bush uses the attribute danger when speaking about Saddam Hussein and the necessity of getting rid of him:

Ex.: He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. the possibility of suffering harm negative real, great, or injury safety imminent, a) a cause or likely cause of harm negative present or injury

It is clear from the table that the simple statement that ―somebody is a danger‖ evokes the fear that this person will imminently cause harm or injury, and it is advisable to do one‘s best to avoid him.

Threat

The expression threat can be considered as quite unique, as both of the 2004 presidential candidates concur that Saddam Hussein is a threat. It is thus used in a very similar way by both candidates. Nevertheless, the discussion degenerates into an argument of how to deal with such a threat.

67

Ex.: After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) serious, real, a person or thing likely to cause negative --- potential, damage or danger terrorist

When somebody is a threat, it is justified to send the army to destroy him. The word threat is thus used in order to explain in a very simplified way, why American troops were sent to Iraq and why, for George W. Bush, invading Iraq is a logical direct consequence of the fact that its leader is a threat. He wants the American public to understand it the same way.

Ideology of hate/hatred

George W. Bush claims that the American enemy has an ideology of hate or its variant ideology of hatred.

Ex.: This Nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate, and that's what they are. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) racial, ethnic, hate; hatred: intense dislike negative love religious, intense

We should probably hate and show no mercy to those who hate us. Thanks to the use of this negative appellation of the enemy, it is not necessary to explain what their ideology actually is, and the plan to destroy them is perfectly justified.

68

Risk

The word risk is used in a biased way once by George W. Bush.

Ex.: Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. a situation involving exposure to negative high, danger certainty, increased, a) a person or thing regarded as a safety negative greater, higher threat or likely source of danger

The word risk is used here exactly in the same way as the more frequent word threat; they can be considered synonyms in this context. The fact that Hussein was a risk justifies George W. Bush‘s acts in Iraq.

Criminal and terrorist

John Kerry calls Osama bin Laden the world‘s number one criminal and terrorist.

Ex.: And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) criminal: person who has international, negative --- committed a crime violent terrorist: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political negative --- international aims

Saying that Osama bin Laden is the world‘s number one criminal and terrorist implies that it is not Saddam Hussein. As president Bush focused on destroying Hussein, this is actually a reproach to Bush‘s politics. If bin Laden is the biggest criminal and terrorist, it means that Hussein is not. And Bush was mistaken.

69

4.4.2.4 Foreign Policy

Hidden bias is used in the contexts of Yugoslavia, Middle East, the Russian – Georgian conflict, North Korea, and Pakistan. Four expressions: (re)build, dangerous, naïve, and dictator are employed by different presidential candidates in different periods. The other biased words, mostly adjectives, are only used by one particular candidate in one particular period: failed by John McCain in 2008, and great and young also by John McCain in 2008. In addition to these, Barack Obama uses the expression terrorist organization once in 2008.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total (Re)rebuild 9 4 0 13 0 12 0 12 Dangerous 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 Naïve 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 Dictator 2 0 0 2 3 0 4 7 Failed 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Great and 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 young Terrorist 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 organization Total 11 8 7 26 3 12 5 20

(Re)build

The word to rebuild or to build needs to be looked at in the context of its meaning as well as its antonyms:

Build denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms make or become stronger or more intense positive demolish, dismantle

Rebuild denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms build (something) again after it has been positive --- damaged or destroyed

70

In 2000, eight of the nine things George W. Bush suggests rebuilding are the military or military power, the remaining one being the coalition. By using this word, he thus implies that he is against destroying and, at the same time, he implies that he will make the military stronger and better. This is something hardly anyone will disagree with. Besides, saying that he wants to rebuild it implies that his opponent might actually want to destroy it or harm it, or that it already is destroyed and the fault is on his predecessor‘s, i.e. Democratic side.

Ex.: And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I want to make sure we rebuild our military to keep the peace. (George W. Bush).

In 2004, both presidential candidates speak about building alliances and coalitions. Most commonly they want true alliances or strong alliances. The word build in this context is used mainly by John Kerry (twelve times), while George W. Bush uses it four times.

Ex.: We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over America's national security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to build those alliances. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances. (John Kerry)

When speaking about alliances and coalitions, the word build is used metaphorically. Building something implies that it grows bigger, and thus also stronger and more apt to be successful. Logically, those who build coalitions and allies are those who are successful.

Dangerous

The adjective dangerous is employed by George W. Bush in 2004 and by John McCain in 2008. Both candidates imply that their opponents‘ opinions on foreign policy are dangerous.

71

Ex.: This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) difficult, new, able or likely to cause harm or negative harmless, safe armed, violent, injury illegal

By claiming that Kerry‘s and Obama‘s opinions are dangerous, Bush and McCain are trying to frighten the public: if Kerry or Obama win the elections, they will have dangerous attitudes and people will thus not be safe.

Naïve

The adjective naïve is used twice by George W. Bush in 2004 and once by John McCain in 2008. In all three cases the word is used together with the above-mentioned adjective dangerous.

Ex.: It is naïve and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. (George W. Bush).

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) (of a person or action) showing a young, lack of experience, wisdom, or negative worldly innocent, judgement stupid

By claiming that their opponents‘ approach is naïve, George W. Bush and John McCain imply that they themselves are experienced and their approach is wise. Using the word naïve enables the Republican candidates to make people not respect Kerry‘s and Obama‘s solutions, without having to explain any details.

72

Dictator

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has negative democrat brutal, ruthless obtained control by force

In 2000, the word dictator is used by both candidates, and its negative meaning is related to the systems in which it is most commonly used – fascism and communism. The negativity of the word is enhanced by its collocates, as people usually perceive dictators as brutal and ruthless. Al Gore uses the word three times. In all cases, he uses it in connection to Slobodan Milosevic, and in two of these three cases, he uses it together with the word communist, thus putting it next to a snarl word (see chapter 4.5.3.4).

Ex.: He was the last communist party boss there and then he became a dictator that by some other label he was still essentially a communist dictator. (Al Gore about Slobodan Milosevic)

George W. Bush only uses the word once and he uses it in general, saying that a dictator should be overthrown. However, there is one case when instead of saying the word dictator, he uses the name Saddam Hussein, while actually meaning dictator. This proper noun used as a metonymy for dictator can thus itself be seen as a biased noun.

Ex.: One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti- ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace is to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends. (George W. Bush)

In 2008, Barack Obama uses the word dictator when speaking about Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, for example in the following sentence:

Ex.: So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over

73 seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy. (Barack Obama)

Calling Musharraf a dictator helps Obama oppose George Bush‘s favorable approach towards Pakistan. The most common collocates of the word enhance the negative perception of a dictator by American public.

Failed

John McCain uses the biased adjective failed when speaking about Pakistan being a failed state before Musharraf came to power.

Ex.: I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) successful, American, not functioning properly negative working economic

It is obvious from the debates that McCain is in favor of Musharraf, whereas Obama is against him. Obama uses the word dictator when speaking about him, McCain, on the contrary, uses the biased adjective failed when speaking about the situation in Pakistan before Musharraf, thus implying that he is successful as the head of Pakistan.

Great (+young)

John McCain uses this combination of biased adjectives when he is speaking about Georgian president Misha Saakashvili.

Ex.: I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president, Misha Saakashvili. (John McCain)

74

Great collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. of ability, quality, or eminence little, small, positive considerably above average minor, modest, poor, a) informal very good; excellent positive American, big apathetic, half- b) informal (of a person) very positive hearted, skilled in a particular area miserable

Young

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. having lived or existed for only a neutral beautiful, short time handsome, a) immature or inexperienced negative healthy, old, mature b) having the qualities associated bright, with young people, such as positive talented, enthusiasm and optimism attractive

In this case, John McCain seems to be building his argument on the assumption that when somebody has all the features these two adjectives imply, we will be more apt to like him/her. Throughout the presidential debates, McCain sides with Georgia whenever speaking about the Russian-Georgian conflict. The use of these two biased adjectives is one of the hidden ways of showing inclination towards Georgia.

Terrorist Organization

Barack Obama uses the expression terrorist organization in reaction to McCain‘s claim that he did not support an amendment declaring the Republican Guard of Iran a sponsor of terror.

Ex.: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran. (Barack Obama)

75

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) a person who uses terrorism in the negative --- international pursuit of political aims

By calling them a terrorist organization, Obama demonstrates that despite McCain‘s claim to the contrary, he is not in favor of this organization.

4.4.2.5 Direction of Politics

When arguing about the future of America, the candidates use several words to support their own good or their opponent‘s bad. In 2000, these words are the verbs to encourage and to scare, and the noun bureaucrat, employed by George W. Bush, and the adjective crucial, uttered by his opponent, Al Gore. In 2004, John Kerry uses the biased adjectives fresh and long, while George W. Bush, on the other hand, speaks about transformation. In 2008, both presidential candidates use the biased adjective new. However, the most common biased words related to this topic are the verb to fight, which is used by all candidates in all periods, and the word fix, which is used in 2004 and 2008 by both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Fight 2 1 26 29 22 27 6 55 Encourage 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Scare 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Bureaucrat 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 Crucial 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Fix 0 1 18 19 0 11 6 17 Fresh (+new) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Long 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Transformation 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 New 0 0 7 7 0 0 5 5 Total 11 3 51 65 24 43 17 84

76

Fight

As for the year 2000, the word fight seems to be Al Gore‘s favorite biased verb; he uses it twenty-two times, whereas George W. Bush only uses it twice. Gore claims he has always fought, is fighting now or will fight in the future for various kinds of good people and things. In particular it‘s worth it for him to fight for middle class families, public financing of all federal elections, the working men and women of this country, the people of this country, a clean environment or generally just for you. denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows neutral or the use of weapons 2. struggle to overcome, eliminate, or --- neutral prevent a) strive to achieve or do something neutral

The tricky thing about the word fight is its double meaning. Even though it is used in the meaning 2. a), i.e. ―strive to achieve or do something‖, it takes over from the other meaning the implication of physical activity and struggle. Thus, by using the word fight, Al Gore is putting himself in the position of a savior who is willing to struggle in order to do his job.

Ex.: I'll fight for a prescription drug benefit for all seniors and fight for the people of this country for a prosperity that benefits all. (Al Gore)

George W. Bush only uses the word fight in this sense twice, in both cases in the past tense and always when speaking about much more concrete things than Gore.

Ex.: I thought that's exactly what he and Mrs. Clinton and them fought for in 1993 was a government-run health care system. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: The electric decontrol bill that I fought for and signed in Texas has mandatory emission standards, Mr. Vice President. (George W. Bush)

77

In the 2004 presidential debates, the verb to fight is used almost solely by John Kerry, except for one case when it is used by George W. Bush. Kerry claims he fought, fights or will fight either for the American citizens or for other various issues.

Ex.: And I'm fighting to let you get those drugs from Canada, and I'm fighting to let Medicare survive. I'm fighting for the middle class. That's the difference. (John Kerry)

Similarly to Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry puts himself in the role of some kind of savior, who is willing to suffer for those who give him their vote, even though in reality the activities he does do not encompass any struggle or physical activity at all.

In 2008, John McCain uses the expression to fight for something twenty-six times and Barack Obama only six times; there is thus a big disproportion in the use of this expression between the two candidates. Both of them speak about fighting for various things. It is worth noticing that in three cases John McCain mentions fighting for reform, which is a very vague word. As for Barack Obama, in three of the six uses of this expression, he uses it when speaking about his running mate Joe Biden. Twice he claims that Biden has been fighting on behalf of working families and once for the little guy. Both these expressions – working families and little guy – are analyzed in the chapter on euphemisms (see chapter 4.6.4).

Ex.: I've fought higher taxes. I have fought excess spending. I have fought to reform government. (John McCain)

Ex.: And, as a consequence, his consistent pattern throughout his career is to fight for the little guy. (Barack Obama)

Encourage

There are four things George W. Bush claims should be encouraged which can be considered as hidden bias: democracy, markets, reform and innovators. Two of these four words – reform and innovators – are very vague positive words, while the third one – democracy – is considered a purr word (see chapter 4.5.3.1). Al Gore does not use the word in a biased way.

78

denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. give support, confidence, or hope to positive (someone) a) persuade (someone) to do or continue discourage, to do something by giving support and positive dissuade, hinder advice b) stimulate the development of (an positive activity, state, or belief)

As the verb to encourage itself means to ―stimulate the development of‖ or ―persuade (someone) to do or continue to do something by giving support and advice‖, to encourage democracy, reform or innovators doesn‘t really convey any tangible information. It just contributes to the progress or growth of something which is generally seen as something good and positive.

Ex.: I know we've got to encourage democracy in the marketplaces. (George W. Bush)

The word encourage can only be considered biased when used without any further specification. On the other hand, if somebody is encouraged to do something and the action he is encouraged to do is explained and clear, it is not considered biased.

Scare

George W. Bush uses the word scare three times when speaking about scaring people into the voting booth.

Ex.: For those of you who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms cause great fear or nervousness in; negative --- frighten

The bias is based on the presupposition that electors should not vote in fear or because of fear. On the contrary, free elections are perceived as one of the main constituents of the democracy and freedoms which are precious to Americans. Thus,

79 saying that ―Gore wants to scare people into the voting booth‖ can be seen as an attempt to arouse aversion towards Al Gore.

Bureaucrat

George W. Bush speaks twice about Al Gore wanting to employ 20,000 new bureaucrats. Al Gore only uses this word once, and it is in reaction to George W. Bush.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) an official in a government department, in particular one federal, perceived as being concerned with negative --- faceless procedural correctness at the expense of people‘s needs

The denotative meaning itself implies that this is a negative word. Its collocates show that bureaucracy is supposed to be found at the federal level of government and that these are people distant from common people and their needs. Al Gore thus reacts to George W. Bush by trying to soften the negative meaning of the word by saying,

Ex.: Now, as for 20,000 new bureaucrats, as you call them, you know, the size of the federal government will go down in a Gore administration. (Al Gore)

By saying ―as you call them‖ he softens the negative perception of the word and implies that it is only Bush who calls these employees by this negative word.

Crucial

The adjective crucial is used together with the noun time, important in the following sentence:

Ex.: I want to thank everybody who watched and listened tonight because this is indeed a crucial time in American history. (Al Gore)

80

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) decisive or critical, especially in insignificant, neutral difficult the success or failure of something unimportant

By connecting the thanking with claiming that this is a crucial time for American people, Gore implies that only by watching the debate people can help to make it better, but that only under the condition that they will vote for him, because he is the one who will be able to secure positive development of the country. As they watched the debate, he had the opportunity to persuade them that he is better than his opponent.

Fix

In the 2004 presidential debates, the expression to fix something is used especially by John Kerry, who uses it eleven times, whereas George W. Bush only uses it once. Kerry speaks about how he would fix problematic political issues and blames the president of not having done that.

Ex.: And if we're fiscally responsible and put America back to work, we're going to fix Social Security. (John Kerry)

Ex.: The President has done nothing to try to fix it. (John Kerry) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. mend or repair positive a) put (a bad or unwelcome situation) positive right remove b) do the necessary work to improve or positive adapt something

Kerry not only blames Bush from not fixing problems, but actually by the claim itself that there are issues that need to be fixed, he implies that there is something neglected or corrupted, i.e. Bush as a president is to blame for neglecting such issues and not solving such problems.

In 2008, though both candidates use the word fix as a verb or noun, the use as a verb predominates. John McCain uses it eighteen times, Barack Obama six times. They 81 claim they have to fix the economy, the energy policy, social policy, Social Security, but mostly they just suggest fixing the problem or fixing the system.

Ex.: But after 9/11, Senator Joe Lieberman and I decided that we needed a commission, and that was a commission to investigate 9/11, and find out what happened, and fix it. (John McCain)

Ex.: We've got to fix our health care system and we've got to invest in our education system for every young person to be able to learn. (Barack Obama)

The use of the positive verb fix allows the candidates to not explain exactly what they want to do or how. It is obvious that fixing something that is broken or torn or not working properly is a positive intention and hardly anyone will disagree with that. However, fixing the problems might encompass steps which people might not agree with. Using this general word thus helps the candidates avoid any detailed explanation.

Fresh (+ new)

The adjective fresh is used together with the noun start and the collocation new credibility. In only one case out of the four, does John Kerry change up the words and says fresh credibility and new start instead of fresh start and new credibility. George W. Bush does not use this word at all.

Ex.: And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who can bring allies to our side. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. not previously known or used; positive new or different stale, old, used new, clean a) recently created or experienced positive and not faded or impaired

By saying that America needs a fresh start, he is implying that George W. Bush‘s policy should be replaced by a new one. The word fresh has positive

82 connotations; something that is fresh is also clean, better than the previous one. On the other hand, Bush‘s policy is stale and ready to be replaced.

Long

The adjective long is used once by John Kerry, who speaks about a long list.

Ex.: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do, and there are a long list of things. (John Kerry)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. lasting or taking a great amount neutral of time short, brief long, hard 2. relatively great in extent neutral

This is a reaction to the question posed by the moderator, who asks what Kerry would do differently to increase the homeland security of the United States. Saying that there is a long list of such things means that the list of things that his opponent has done is very short; in other words, Bush‘s policy of homeland security is not sufficient and bad.

Transformation

The noun transformation is used once by George W. Bush. It can be considered positively biased in the following sentence:

Ex.: One of the most important things we're doing in this administration is transformation. There's some really interesting technologies. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) social, a marked change in form, nature, neutral --- economic, or appearance political

83

Even though the word transformation does not necessarily have to be only positive, it is usually implied that the transformation leads to something better than the previous. However, the word transformation is very vague and can encompass a variety of activities that might not always be positive, but these are hidden under this positive heading. The use of this word can be perceived as an attempt for a response to John Kerry‘s claims that America needs a fresh start and that there is a long list of things he would do better than President Bush has done.

New

Both candidates in the debates of 2008 use the biased word new in a similar way. George W. Bush uses it five times when speaking about a new direction and twice when speaking about a new strategy. Barack Obama uses it three times when speaking about a new direction and twice when speaking about a new energy economy.

Ex.: I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country. (John McCain)

Ex.: We've got to take this in a new direction, that's what I propose as president. (Barack Obama)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. produced, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the positive old, first time; not existing before hackneyed, whole 2. beginning anew and in a present positive transformed way

Something that is new is usually expected to be positive and better than the old one. The new direction, strategy, or energy economy is thus automatically expected to be better than any previous direction, strategy, or energy economy. Moreover, in particular the word direction is very vague in meaning. By claiming that they want a new direction, both candidates thus say that they want to improve something, but without mentioning what and how.

84

In the case of a new energy economy used by Barack Obama, he is trying to persuade the people that the energy economy he is proposing will be better than the previous (i.e. Republican) one or any other energy economy.

4.4.2.6 Patriotism

Three biased words, the adjective great, the verb to succeed and the noun hero, are used to evoke patriotic feelings in the American audience. The adjective great is used in this context by all the candidates in all three election years. The verb succeed, on the other hand, occurs only once in 2000 when it is uttered by George W. Bush. Al Gore uses the noun hero.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Great 2 4 2 8 2 4 2 8 Succeed 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hero 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 3 4 2 9 3 4 2 9

Great

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) little, small, minor, modest, of ability, quality, or eminence poor, positive American, big considerably above average apathetic, half- hearted, miserable

In the case of the adjective great, it is important to distinguish between using it properly and using it as a hidden bias. In 2000, there are four uses which I consider biased, two by George W. Bush and two by Al Gore. Bush uses it when speaking about the great technology of the United States and about America being a great land. Al Gore speaks about Boston

85 being a great city (the debate takes place in Boston) and about the great economy that America has. In all four cases, both the denotative meaning and the collocates show that the adjective great enhances the patriotic feeling conveyed in these statements. When speaking about the great technology, great land and great economy, it is addressed to all Americans. When Gore speaks about the great city, he is addressing only the people in the audience, because the debate is taking place in Boston, and he wants to flatter them.

Ex.: I think the American people deserve credit for the great economy that we have. (Al Gore)

In 2004, it is used when speaking about America being a great land or a great country, Americans being a great nation, having a great Constitution or great entrepreneurial spirit. Both candidates use the word four times in a biased way.

Ex.: I--listen, I--we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I ask you to allow me the privilege of leading this great Nation of ours, of helping us to be stronger here at home and to be respected again in the world and, most of all, to be safer forever. (John Kerry)

Both candidates are trying to evoke positive patriotic feelings in people. The meaning of great being ―of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average‖ implies that Americans are better than other nations and thus have the right to be the leading nation of the world, imposing their attitudes and values on others. American is also the most common relevant collocate, which supports this point of view.

As for the year 2008, both of the candidates use this word twice. John McCain speaks about America being the greatest force for good and Barack Obama about America being the greatest country on Earth and Americans being the greatest nation on Earth. The fact that according to the definitions of the word great, they claim that

86

America is actually ―of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average‖, they evoke positive patriotic feelings in the people and make them proud of the fact that they are Americans and also show that they themselves are proud that they are Americans.

Succeed

According to George W. Bush, America is ―a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed.‖ denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. achieve the desired aim or result positive fail a) attain fame, wealth, or social status positive

Thus, nobody is a failure in America. This, together with the purr word freedom instills patriotic feelings in people and might make them support Bush in the elections.

Hero

The noun hero is used by Al Gore in the following sentence:

Ex.: Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said okay, the United States is going to be the leader? (Al Gore)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, American, positive loser, villain outstanding achievements, or noble national qualities

A hero is unequivocally a very positively perceived person. By comparing himself to the ―generation of heroes‖ and wanting to do what those heroes did in the past, he is making an attempt to look good in the eyes of his voters. Furthermore, the collocates show the hidden patriotic meaning of the word.

87

4.4.2.7 Co-workers and Candidates’ Background

Hidden bias in this category is used by most of the candidates in order to promote themselves or their running-mates, or, on the other hand, to harm the reputation of their opponents. Only the word proud is used in all three years. The only biased word in the 2004 debates is the word friends, employed by John Kerry. The remaining biased expressions, i.e. hero, reformer, role model and terrorist (organization) appear only in the 2008 presidential debates, almost all of them being uttered solely by John McCain. The only exception is the word hero, which is also used once by Barack Obama. Obama also uses the adjective young in a biased way.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Proud 2 0 8 10 0 5 1 6 Friends 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Hero 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 1 Reformer 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 Role model 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Terrorist 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 (organization) Young 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 0 18 20 0 7 3 10

Proud

In 2000, the word proud is used several times by both speakers, but it can only be understood as biased in two cases, always when it is used as an attribute. Once when speaking about a proud record of working with both Republicans and Democrats, and once when speaking about being proud parents of teenage twin daughters.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) feeling deep pleasure or satisfaction as a result of one‘s own ashamed, real, happy, achievements, qualities, or shameful, positive tall, strong, possessions or those of someone humble, American with whom one is closely modest associated

88

The above definition of the word proud shows that when George W. Bush is speaking about his proud record, he is stressing the positive aspect of cooperation he participated in, and is thus implying that he is a good politician and negotiator, and would be a good president of the United States, able to work with both parties.

Ex.: I have a proud record of working with both Republicans and Democrats. (George W. Bush)

In the case of proud parents, it is more interesting to focus on the most common collocations. To be proud of your family might be understood as having a happy, real family. This is something which conservative voters might take into consideration when deciding who they will give their vote to.

Ex.: Laura and I are proud parents of teenage girls.

In 2004, the adjective proud is only used by John Kerry, who uses it five times. He says he is proud that certain people support him (twice), he is proud of what he has done so far, he is proud to be in Arizona, and he wants people to be proud of him. Even though the contexts in which the word proud is used are very different, all of them can be considered biased. When speaking about the people who support him, by saying that he is proud of this support, he implies that these people have high qualities or achievements and their support thus has more authority. By saying that he is proud of what he has achieved so far, he implies that he is pleased and satisfied and thus insists that what he has done is good and people should agree with it. Being proud to be in Arizona when talking to the Arizonans is supposed to get them to Kerry‘s side. And by saying that he wants people to be proud of him, he is actually promising that he will be a good president, better than the current one.

In the 2008 debates, John McCain uses the expression to be proud of eight times, whereas Barack Obama uses it only once. McCain is proud of his own working across the aisle, which means cooperating with both Republicans and Democrats (3x), of Sarah Palin (2x), of the support of the veterans, of the people who come to his rallies,

89 and of serving the American nation. Barack Obama is proud of his vice-presidential choice.

Ex.: I'm proud of that work, again, bipartisan, reaching across the aisle, working together, Democrat and Republican alike. (John McCain)

Ex.: Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden. (Barack Obama)

Whatever the candidates are proud of, they say it in order to stress the positive aspect of the thing or the person. By saying that they are proud of their running mates, they imply that they insist on their decision and they think the vice-presidential candidate is a good one. When President Bush claims that he is proud of the veterans‘ support, or of the people coming to his rallies, he implies that he regards these people highly and appreciates them. Similarly, by saying that he is proud of his own work, he puts stress on the positive aspect of what he has done so far and foists on people the impression that what he has done so far is good.

Friends

There are two special cases when the word friend is used by John Kerry in 2004 and both can be considered as negatively biased. This is when he says that the president and his friends have done something or try to do something which, according to Kerry, is not desirable.

Ex.: In the Senate, we passed the right of Americans to import drugs from Canada. But the President and his friends took it out in the House, and now you don't have that right. (John Kerry)

Ex.: Now, ladies and gentlemen, important to understand, the President and his friends try to make a big deal out of it. (John Kerry).

90

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. a person with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically positive one exclusive of sexual or family best, old, enemy relations good, close a) a person who is not an enemy or positive opponent; an ally

Even though the word friend is a very positive one, its use in the above two sentences is very special, as it designates people who stand behind the president‘s bad decisions or deeds. It is used in the meaning 1. a), as a synonym of an ally. However, an ally does not necessarily need to be perceived positively, in case it helps something that is evil in our eyes. Kerry seems to use this word in order to imply that there is a group of people around the president, who do harm to American people.

Hero

In 2008, the word hero is used by John McCain three times and by Barack Obama once. McCain uses it when speaking about presidents Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt, and about Congressman John Lewis. Obama also uses it in relation to Congressman Lewis.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding positive loser, villain American, national achievements, or noble qualities

Ex.: You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly -- talk softly, but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. (John McCain)

Ex.: In Lebanon, I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said, if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect this situation? And said we shouldn't. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed. (John McCain)

91

In the first sentence, the fact that Roosevelt was McCain‘s hero gives him more authority, and thus there is no doubt that what he said is true. The second sentence is somewhat more complex. By claiming that Reagan is a hero, McCain intimates that he deserves to be hailed, and thus in general is a good person, even though he was mistaken this time. However, McCain was right when he stood up to him and disagreed with him and that makes him even better than the hero President Reagan. It is also interesting to notice that in both cases he uses the word hero together with the personal pronoun my. This stresses McCain‘s personal and in a way even intimate perception of the two presidents and in a hidden way says that he is inspired by them. In the case of Congressman Lewis, it is a different situation. John McCain speaks about him in the context of what Lewis said about him and Sarah Palin.

Ex.: One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful. (John McCain)

Barack Obama reacts to this and also uses the word hero.

Ex.: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign's awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line." (Barack Obama)

This is a totally different case from the previous two. Here, of course, they do not mean to claim that this Congressman should be hailed and that the candidates are inspired by him. The purpose of using this biased word here is actually to understate what he said and make his allegation less serious. As he is an American hero, he couldn‘t mean such things seriously.

92

Reformer

John McCain uses this word once when he is speaking about himself being a consistent reformer and three times about his running mate Sarah Palin who is, according to him, a reformer, a reformer through and through and a role model to women and other -- and reformers all over America.

Ex.: Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. They know that she's a role model to women and other -- and reformers all over America. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) reform: make changes in (something, especially an progressive positive --- institution or practice) in order to (reformer) improve it

The word reformer is derived from the vague word reform which itself means ―make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it‖. In addition to that, being progressive is very positive, and even though McCain does not say much about Sarah Palin, the voters feel that they have a reason to vote for her and want her to be the vice president.

Role model

Besides being a reformer, Sarah Palin is, according to John McCain, also a role model.

Ex.: Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. They know that she's a role model to women and other -- and reformers all over America. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) a person looked to by others as an good, positive, positive --- example to be imitated young

93

Very similarly to the previous meaning of reformer, this does not say much about her. However, it implies that, apart from other things, she is young, inspirational and worthy of imitation.

Terrorist (organization)

When speaking about Obama, McCain is not reluctant to imply that his opponent is somehow connected with terrorists.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) a person who uses terrorism in the negative --- international pursuit of political aims

McCain puts emphasis on Obama‘s relationship with Bill Ayers and calls him an old washed-up terrorist:

Ex.: Mr. Ayers, I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Sen. Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship. (John McCain)

By claiming that a person who is in contact with Obama is a terrorist, McCain insinuates that Obama is also a terrorist or at least that he has a positive approach to terrorists. A similarly biased noun can be found in the following example, where McCain again makes a connection between Obama and terrorists:

Ex.: Well, let me just said that that this is -- he -- Sen. Obama doesn't want a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit down across the table without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization. (John McCain)

FARC is a terrorist organization, it is supported by Chavez, and Obama wants to sit down at the table without precondition with him; therefore, Obama is helping terrorists.

94

Young

Barack Obama uses this word when speaking about a young mayor in D.C.

Ex.: And we've got a wonderful new superintendent there who's working very hard with the young mayor there to try... (Barack Obama)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. having lived or existed for only a neutral beautiful, short time handsome, a) immature or inexperienced negative healthy, old, mature b) having the qualities associated bright, with young people, such as positive talented, enthusiasm and optimism attractive

Saying that this mayor is young might have the impact on people, that they will regard him in favor and agree with what he does in his city, as the fact that he is young might also mean that he has progressive ideas and opinions.

4.4.2.8 Security

When speaking about security, hidden bias is used only in one particular case in 2000, and then quite extensively in the year 2004, mainly by George W. Bush. There are three biased verbs used in this context: to protect, to strengthen and to modernize. In 2008, John McCain uses the biased adjective young.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Protect 1 22 0 23 0 3 0 3 Strengthen 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 Modernize 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Young 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 1 25 1 27 0 7 0 7

95

Protect

There is essential difference between the one use of the word protect by George W. Bush in 2000 and all the uses of the word in 2004. In 2000, it is used when speaking about owning guns. George W. Bush claims that he believes that ―law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families‖.

Ex.: Here is what I believe, sir. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. (George W. Bush)

It is important to analyze this statement closely, as the biased word to protect is supported by several additional means of doublespeak. denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms attack, harm, hurt, keep safe from harm or injury positive injure

The word protect is in opposition to attack, harm, hurt or injure. Even though guns can actually be used for all of these, Bush speaks only about protecting oneself, thus emphasizing the positive aspect of owning guns. This is enhanced by using the emotionally loaded word family. It is very improbable that anyone will object to protecting one‘s own family. On the other hand, this statement is softened by the use of the word believe (something he believes might not necessarily have to be correct) and by the adjective law-abiding. The definition of law-abiding is ―obedient to the laws of society‖ and the relevant collocations are decent, responsible, honest, and good. It can thus be concluded that by wording this sentence in this way, Bush is trying to prevent any objections to his argumentation.

In 2004, this verb is used mostly in relation to the United States and its citizens. It is used mainly by George W. Bush, who uses it twenty-two times. John Kerry only uses it three times.

Ex.: Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job. I work with Director Mueller

96 of the FBI. He comes into my office, when I'm in Washington, every morning talking about how to protect us. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms keep safe from harm or injury positive attack, harm, hurt

When the president says that he protects America, he implies that America is in danger of being harmed. Even though there might not be any proof of such danger, the purpose of using the word protect in this context is to scare people and to make them see the president as the one who can save them from this imaginary harm.

Strengthen

The verb to strengthen is used especially when speaking about the military, but also in relation to homeland defense or intelligence. It is used by both candidates: four times by John Kerry and twice by George W. Bush.

Ex.: In the next 4 years, we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror: by strengthening our military; strengthening our intelligence; … (John Kerry) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms break down, hurt, make or become stronger positive weaken

Whereas George W. Bush speaks about continuing to strengthen the above- mentioned aspects of American foreign policy, John Kerry claims ―he has a better plan‖, and that is strengthening these aspects of American foreign policy. George W. Bush thus implies that it is already strong enough, but could be even stronger. On the other hand, Kerry implies that it is not strong enough and he would be better at it. In any case, the word is rather vague, and it allows them to sound positive without actually specifying what exactly they want to do in order to be stronger.

97

Modernize

The verb to modernize is only used once by George W. Bush.

Ex.: We're modernizing our borders. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms adapt (something) to modern needs or habits, typically by installing modern antique, date, positive equipment or adopting modern ideas or regress, wear methods

By this modernizing Bush actually means building a wall on the Mexican border. However, the effect of the use of the positive word modernize is very positive: people might argue about building a wall on the border, but certainly not about modernizing borders.

Young

John McCain uses this adjective once when speaking about the necessity to stop the flow of drugs into the US that is killing young Americans.

Ex.: The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. having lived or existed neutral for only a short time a) immature or beautiful, negative inexperienced handsome, healthy, old, mature b) having the qualities bright, talented, associated with young attractive positive people, such as enthusiasm and optimism

Putting stress on the fact that these people are young (and thus also beautiful, healthy, bright, talented, etc.), as well as immature and inexperienced, but on the other hand enthusiastic and optimistic, makes people feel more sorry for them. In addition,

98

McCain uses the phrase young Americans instead of young people. The word people is rather neutral, whereas the word Americans is itself also biased, as it is very likely to evoke positive patriotic feelings, unlike the neutral word people. In the case of young Americans dying because of drugs, the use of hidden bias aims at intensifying McCain‘s opponent‘s bad, as McCain claims that Obama opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, Colombia being a country helping them to stop the flow of drugs into the USA. According to McCain, Obama is thus partly to blame for the death of young Americans.

4.4.2.9 Social, Health and Education Policy

As can be seen in the table below, Republican candidates use hidden bias when speaking about this topic much more than Democratic candidates. It is most common in the year 2000, when George W. Bush uses the biased verbs to trust, to trap, to shuffle, and the phrase save, dream and build. Al Gore uses the noun outrage. In 2004, hidden bias can be found again in the verb to shuffle, and in the verb to ruin and the adjective modern, used by George W. Bush, and, in 2008, in the word fine, which is used both as a verb and a noun, mostly by John McCain.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Trust 17 0 0 17 1 0 0 1 Trap 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 Shuffle 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 Save, dream, 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 build Outrage 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Modern 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Ruin 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Fine 0 0 11 11 0 0 2 2 Total 24 5 11 40 4 0 2 6

99

Trust

George W. Bush uses the word to trust when speaking about young workers and people in general. Even though he only uses the word in these two contexts, he uses it seventeen times. Al Gore, on the other hand, only uses it once, but it is much more concrete. denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms believe in the reliability, truth, or ability distrust, mistrust, positive of doubt

In almost all the sentences where George W. Bush uses this word, it has a rather vague positive meaning, as if by stressing that he trusts people he was implying that Al Gore was doing the opposite, i.e. distrusting or doubting people and as a result of saying this, Bush is supposed to look better in the eyes of the electorate.

Ex.: Younger worker after younger worker hears my call that says I trust you. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: He wants to grow the government and I trust you with your own money. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. (George W. Bush)

Al Gore supports his argument about social policy by saying that he trusts Social Security. By saying that he himself has confidence in it, he implies that so should the public.

Ex.: Just briefly. When FDR established Social Security, they didn't call them IOUs, they called it the full faith and credit of the United States. If you don't have trust in that, I do. (Al Gore)

Trap

The word trap or its past form trapped is used by both candidates in 2000 when speaking about children in bad schools.

100

Ex.: Now, you're -- and the way it would happen is that under his plan, if a school was designated as failing, the kids would be trapped there for another three years and then some of them would get federal vouchers and the state would be forced to match those, that money. (Al Gore) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. catch (an animal) in a trap negative a) prevent (someone) from escaping from negative a place --- 2. trick or deceive (someone) into doing something contrary to their interests or negative intentions

It is a direct opposition to what is seen as desirable, i.e. being free. It is supposed to evoke in people the urge to help these children to be freed or released from this trap. George W. Bush uses it once, together with the word shuffle in one sentence:

Ex.: But when we find children trapped in schools that will not change and will not teach, instead of saying oh, this is okay in America just to shuffle poor kids through schools, there has to be a consequence. (George W. Bush)

Shuffle

George W. Bush uses the verb to shuffle twice in 2000 and twice in 2004, in one of the cases it is used in combination with the above-mentioned verb to trap. denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms walk by dragging one‘s feet along or negative --- without lifting them fully from the ground

The negative words trap and shuffle are used in relation to children, who are not supposed to be trapped or to shuffle; on the other hand, they should be free and should be running. We should thus feel sorry for the children and make the effort to liberate them from the trap. In the context of the sentence, this is supported by the word America, possibly implying that it might be all right that children are trapped in bad schools somewhere else in the world, but not in America, and by the adjective poor,

101 among whose meanings we can mention ―deserving of pity or sympathy‖ and ―lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society‖. All these means maximize the need to support Bush‘s ideas about schooling. However, instead of a strong climax at the end of the sentence, there is the vague word consequence.

Save, dream and build

A special example of biased verbs employed by George W. Bush is actually a phrase composed of three verbs: to save, dream and build.

Save denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms keep and store up (something, especially positive --- money) for future use

Dream denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. indulge in daydreams or fantasies positive --- about something greatly desired

Build denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. construct (something) by putting parts positive or material together 2. make or become stronger or more positive demolish, dismantle intense a) establish and develop (a business or positive situation) over a period of time

There is a difference between using the word build on its own (see above) and using it in this phrase. As the word build in this case is not further specified and is not followed by any object, it can carry any of the three above-stated meanings. Its use in this phrase is thus rather vague. George W. Bush puts exactly these three words together twice, which means that they are put together on purpose, even though each time they are in a different order. They seem to be used as a synonym for the cliché expression American dream. This is

102 supported by the context in which the verbs are used – those who can save and dream and build are the ―hard-working people of America‖ and they should not do it for themselves, but for their families.

Ex.: I think it's the hard-working people of America's money and I want to share some of that money with you so you have more money to build and save and dream for your families. (George W. Bush)

Outrage

The word outrage is used by Al Gore when speaking about health insurance, and he calls the fact that 15% of people don‘t have it a national outrage.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. an extremely strong reaction of negative anger, shock, or indignation --- moral a) an action or event causing negative outrage

The collocate which by far most commonly goes with the word outrage is the adjective moral. Al Gore is thus trying to say that the fact that 15% of Americans do not have health insurance is immoral, and the whole nation is participating in it.

Modern

George W. Bush uses the word modern in relation to the medical care system for seniors. He employs the word twice.

Ex.: I think our seniors deserve a modern medical system. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. relating to the present or recent positive times as opposed to the remote past past, old- American, a) characterized by or using the fashioned western most up-to-date techniques, ideas, positive or equipment

103

The advantage of the word modern is its vagueness. John Kerry criticizes George W. Bush for his healthcare policy, and for Bush it is enough to say that he wants modern medical care, and it is just this one word that might help him to get seniors on his side.

Ruin

George W. Bush says that government sponsorship would ruin the quality of health care in America.

Ex.: That's what liberals do: They create Government- sponsored health care. Maybe you think that makes sense. I don't. Government-sponsored health care would lead to rationing. It would ruin the quality of health care in America. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. reduce (a building or place) to a state negative of decay, collapse, or disintegration a) cause great and usually irreparable save, rebuild damage or harm to; have a disastrous negative effect on

Using this negative expression allows George W. Bush to scare people that if John Kerry becomes the president, American health care system will be harmed or even damaged. Similarly to other such negative verbs, the advantage of using this word consists in not having to explain any further details. It suffices to threaten with a claim like this and people will take for granted that it is true. As this kind of word is only a part of a longer utterance, the opponent does not have the opportunity to react to every such word that is pronounced and thus it is very difficult to refute the implied meanings.

Fine

John McCain speaks about Barack Obama fining small businesses who won‘t offer health care to their employees according to Obama‘s plan. He uses it both as a verb and a noun, saying that Obama is going to fine them, and then he keeps asking how high the fines will be. Barack Obama himself uses the word twice, but it is only in the reaction to McCain‘s claims.

104

Ex.: If you're a small business person and you don't insure your employees, Senator Obama will fine you. Will fine you. That's remarkable. If you're a parent and you're struggling to get health insurance for your children, Senator Obama will fine you. (John McCain)

Ex.: I just described what my plan is. And I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there. Here's your fine -- zero. You won't pay a fine, because... (Barack Obama) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms punish (someone) for an illegal or illicit negative --- act by making them pay a sum of money

McCain keeps repeating that Obama will fine people and then speaks about the fines to make people scared of him. Fines are normally imposed by authorities for doing something wrong. This is a way how McCain can make people scared of Obama being a president. The word fine seems to correspond to McCain‘s point more than the word penalize itself would, as the latter is more general and is further from people‘s everyday life experience (see chapter 2.1.3)

4.4.2.10 American Economy

There are three biased words related to the American economy. The most common of them is the verb to grow, which is used in particular by George W. Bush in 2004. The other two expressions are the adjectives failed, used by Barack Obama in 2008 and short-term, also used by Obama.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Grow 0 12 0 12 0 1 0 1 Failed 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 Short-term 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 0 12 0 12 0 1 7 8

105

Grow

The verb to grow is used almost exclusively (twelve times) by George W. Bush when he speaks about the situation of the economy in the USA after the first four years of his presidency. John Kerry only uses the word once.

Ex.: I led the Congress. We passed tax relief. And now this economy is growing. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: Sure, there's more work to do. But the way to make sure our economy grows is not to raise taxes on small-business owners. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms become larger or greater over a period of positive shrink, decline time; increase

The use of the word grow allows the president to focus people‘s attention on this positive aspect of the development of the United States; however, as a result, he can avoid mentioning other aspects, which go hand in hand with the growth of the economy, but which might not be that positive. Furthermore, repeating that thanks to him the American economy is growing implies that it would probably decline if John Kerry became the next president.

Failed

Barack Obama uses this word six times when speaking about failed (economic) policies in the past eight years.

Ex.: And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain. (Barack Obama)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) successful, American, not functioning properly negative working economic

106

By speaking about failed (economic) policy in the last eight years when a Republican was a president, Obama is trying to make the impression that his own policy will logically be successful. Even though the failed policy was George W. Bush‘s policy and not John McCain‘s, he argues that McCain‘s would be the same and hence fail too.

Short-term

The word short-term is used in a biased way by Barack Obama once, when he is speaking about solving a short-term problem.

Ex.: And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, … (Barack Obama)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) occurring in or relating to a relatively short period of future neutral long-term immediate time

Although it might seem that the word short-term means something trivial, it is not so. The relevant collocate shows that by using this modifier Obama seems to put stress on the urgency of the problem and wants to imply that it must be solved as quickly as possible.

4.4.2.11 Resistance to Interest Groups

Hidden bias is in this context used solely in the year 2000, in particular by Al Gore, who employs the adjectives big and powerful fifteen times. George W. Bush only uses the word big twice.

107

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Big 2 0 0 2 10 0 0 10 Powerful 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 Total 2 0 0 2 15 0 0 15

Big

George W. Bush uses the biased word big in this context twice, while Al Gore uses it ten times. Al Gore speaks about big drug companies, big oil companies, and big insurance companies. George W. Bush employs the word similarly, in relation to big business and big trial lawyers. The meaning of the word big in these cases can be seen in the following table:

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) of considerable importance or small, little, neutral great, fat, seriousness younger, strong of considerable size or extent neutral minor, mean

Although the main meaning in all three cases is ―of considerable importance‖, the word also encompasses the meaning of ―of considerable size or extent‖, which also implies being fat and strong, thus something that might be dangerous, difficult to fight against. As a result, by claiming for example:

Ex.: I've been standing up to big business, Hollywood, big trial lawyers. (George W. Bush)

Bush implies that he is brave enough to do so and consequently to be brave enough to be a good president. Al Gore uses the word very similarly by saying, for example:

Ex.: Listen, for 24 years I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. (Al Gore)

108

Powerful

The adjective powerful is used by Al Gore with two very vague words: twice with the word interests and three times with the word forces:

Ex.: I cast my lot with the people even when it means that you have to stand up to some powerful interests who are trying to turn the -- the policies and the laws to their advantage.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. having great power or strength neutral rich, big, a) having control and influence weak, gentle strong, neutral over people and events wealthy, large

Almost identically to the use of the word big, the adjective powerful is in this case employed in order to show how brave Al Gore is that he stands up to interests or forces that have great power or strength. Both the words interests and forces are rather vague, interests meaning ―a group or organization having a common concern, especially in politics or business‖ and forces meaning ―a person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence‖. As it is very hard to imagine any concrete people under these descriptions, he is actually standing up to some obscure powers. The relevant collocates only support this theory.

4.4.2.12 Environment

The most common biased word used in the context of environment is the adjective clean. In addition, in the debates of 2000, George W. Bush uses the adjective profound and Al Gore uses the noun treasure. In 2008, the adjective extreme is used once by John McCain.

109

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Clean 3 2 4 9 4 0 4 8 Profound 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Treasure 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Extreme 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 4 2 5 11 7 0 4 11

Clean

The word clean is used in a biased way by all the presidential candidates except for John Kerry.

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. free from dirt, marks, or stains positive white, good, dirty, polluted, a) free from pollutants or dry, fresh, positive used unpleasant substances nice, safe, new

All the candidates use the word clean in almost the same way, in particular when speaking about coal and other kinds of technology, and sources of energy. Any of these can be clean as such. But simply by stating that it is clean and implying that it is also good, safe, and new, any objections are eliminated. It is not very probable that the candidates would support new investments in dirty coal technology or want to use dirty domestic sources.

Ex.: I'm going to ask the Congress for $2 billion to make sure we have the cleanest coal technologies in the world. (George W. Bush).

Ex.: I strongly support new investments in clean coal technology. (Al Gore)

Profound

The adjective profound is used in relation to a scientist George W. Bush adverts to. Even though he is not able to finish the sentence, it is quite clear what he wants to say:

110

Ex.: I just -- I think there has been -- some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound scientist recently made a different – (was interrupted) (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) (of a person or statement) having superficial, or showing great knowledge or positive severe mild, slight insight

The word profound in this sentence implies that the scientist should be trusted and is right, and as he changed his opinion on global warming, it is possible that Al Gore‘s opinion might be mistaken and might also be changed in the future.

Treasure

Al Gore uses the word treasure when speaking about the environment:

Ex.: And also domestic exploration yes, but not in the environmental treasures of our country. (Al Gore)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. a quantity of precious metals, positive national, gems, or other valuable objects --- American a) a very valuable object positive

It is apparent that most people will support him in trying to prevent exploration in an environmental treasure as it is supposed to be something very valuable and exploration would destroy it. At the same time the word treasure is rather vague and enables him not to specify where exactly he does not want to explore. Furthermore, the most common collocates show that the word treasure is very often used with the adjectives national or American and thus it could evoke patriotic feelings which might influence the opinion on the exploration.

111

Extreme

The biased adjective extreme is used by John McCain in the context of the environment once, when he compares Obama to extreme environmentalists.

Ex.: Sen. Obama will tell you, in the -- as the extreme environmentalists do, it has to be safe. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. reaching a high or the highest neutral degree; very great slight, a) (of a person or their opinions) moderate, safe, radical, violent far from moderate, especially negative near politically

The most relevant collocates in this context are the words radical and violent. The aim of using the expression extreme when speaking about Obama‘s opinions on environment seems to be an attempt to put Obama‘s opinions behind the reasonable limits and make them look absurd and dangerous in the eyes of the public.

4.4.2.13 Abortion and Other Controversial Issues

In the case of abortion, hidden bias is more common in the language of Republican candidates. In order to support their conservative opinions on this issue, George W. Bush uses the adjective good in 2000 and the verb welcome in 2000 and 2004. John McCain uses the adjective extreme in 2008. As for the Democrats, only one biased verb – to trust – is employed by Al Gore in 2000. As for the biased adjective good used by George W. Bush in 2000, it is not only employed in the context of abortion, but also in exactly the same way when speaking about the death penalty once.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Good 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Trust 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Welcome 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 Extreme 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Total 4 2 2 8 2 0 0 2

112

Good

The word good can be considered biased in Bush‘s three uses together with the word people. Although Al Gore also uses the expression good people once, it is not used in a biased way. In all three cases, the collocation good people is used when speaking about controversial topics – the death penalty and abortion. It is used e.g. in the two following sentences:

Ex.: This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: The death penalty is a very serious business, Leo. It's an issue that good people obviously disagree on. (George W. Bush)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) possessing or displaying moral bad, wicked, positive --- virtue naughty, mean

It is interesting to observe that in both cases George W. Bush claims that this is a topic ―good people disagree on‖. Even though it is obvious which side he is on, he cannot risk losing the votes of those who have a different opinion. By saying this, he thus insinuates that even if you agree with abortion you are morally admirable, you still do possess or display moral virtue. The same applies for those who are for or against the death penalty.

Trust

Al Gore, who is in favor of abortion being legal, uses the word trust when supporting his argument:

Ex.: He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. (Al Gore)

113 denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms believe in the reliability, truth, or ability distrust, mistrust, positive of doubt

The play on the word trust supports Gore‘s point of view. He puts into contrast trusting the government and trusting the women. Whatever someone‘s opinion on abortion might be, it is certain that more people will identify with trusting the women than trusting the government.

Welcome

George W. Bush uses the word welcome in relation to children and claims that all of them are protected by law and are welcome to life. He uses this expression in this context once in 2000 and twice in 2004.

Ex.: I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. (George W. Bush) denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms 1. an instance or manner of greeting positive someone resent, object to a) a pleased or approving reaction positive

The biased verb welcome makes part of a whole Republican lexicon related to abortion. It completes especially the euphemism pro-life, which means against abortion. Bush implies that agreeing with abortion means rejecting or turning away from a child. The negative aspect consists mainly in moving the focus from a several- week-old embryo to a newly born child.

Extreme

The biased adjective extreme is used twice by John McCain in the context of abortion. McCain compares Obama to extreme pro-abortionists.

114

Ex.: I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro-abortion movement in America. And that's his record, and that's a matter of his record. (John McCain)

collocates denotative meaning evaluativeness antonyms (COCA) 1. reaching a high or the highest neutral degree; very great slight, a) (of a person or their opinions) moderate, safe, radical, violent far from moderate, especially negative near politically

The most relevant collocates in this context are the word radical and violent. The aim of using the expression extreme when speaking about Obama‘s opinions on abortion seems to be the attempt to put Obama‘s opinions behind the reasonable limits and make them look absurd and dangerous in the eyes of the public.

4.4.3 Conclusion

The analysis has shown that hidden bias is used most frequently in the debates of 2004, especially by George W. Bush, who uses 199 biased words, followed by John McCain (148), John Kerry (135), George W. Bush in 2000 (63), Al Gore (58), and Barack Obama (40). This outcome confirms the first two hypotheses, i.e. that doublespeak is most often used in the elections of 2004 and that it is used more by Republican candidates than by Democratic candidates. However, it is important to take into consideration the context of the debates, in particular the fact that the debates in 2004 and partly also in 2008 focus predominantly on the war in Iraq. When considered separately, those ten remaining topics, which are not related to this war, offer a somewhat different conclusion. Whereas the use of hidden bias in 2000 and 2004 is distributed relatively fairly between Republican and Democratic candidates, there is a substantial difference between the use of hidden bias by John McCain and Barack Obama in 2008; John McCain uses biased expressions more than twice as much as Barack Obama. On the other hand, when considering hidden bias related to the war in Iraq separately, it is by far most frequently used by George W. Bush in 2004, followed by

115

John Kerry and John McCain. The purpose of using biased expressions related to Iraq in the case of George W. Bush and John McCain is to justify this conflict and to support the point of view that American troops should not withdraw from the country. On the other hand, John Kerry‘s objective is to persuade the public that he would approach the issue in a different way and that this approach would be more successful.

97

74 62 58 61

40 Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates

2000 2004 2008

Graph 2: Hidden Bias Related to Other Topics than Iraq

138

61 51 Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates 1 0

0 2000 2004 2008

Graph 3: Hidden Bias Related to Iraq

116

The topics that are not related to the war in Iraq can be divided into two groups according to the purpose of the use of hidden bias. The first group includes the topics foreign policy; security; social, health and education policy; American economy; the environment; and abortion. The purpose of using hidden bias in these topic groups is to support the candidates‘ political point of view on those particular issues. As for the topics direction of politics, co-workers and candidates’ background and resistance to interest groups, the purpose corresponds to the purpose mentioned in the third hypothesis, i.e. to intensify one‘s own or his running mate‘s good, to downplay the opponent‘s good, or to intensify the opponent‘s bad. The topic patriotism can be considered a special case, as hidden bias is used here in order to intensify the good of America as a country in general and the collective good of Americans as its citizens.

***

The analysis has shown that hidden bias can be based on four different factors: 1) positive or negative evaluativeness of the denotative meaning itself, 2) relevant denotative meaning affected by non-relevant denotative meaning, 3) position on one of the extreme ends of the positive – negative scale, and 4) connotations based on collocations. In most of the cases, however, the bias is composed of a combination of two or more of these factors.

4.5 Purr and Snarl Words

4.5.1 Introduction

Hayakawa (1949: 45) coins the expressions purr words and snarl words and describes them as words which are ―direct expressions of approval or disapproval, judgments in their simplest form‖. He suggests that they ―may be said to be human equivalents of snarling and purring‖ (1949: 45). The problem is that the meaning of the expression is often not allocated correctly, and Hayakawa insists that such expressions should be taken ―as a revelation of the speaker‘s state of mind, and not as a revelation of facts‖ (1949: 45).

117

A clear definition of snarl words is given by Leech (1990). He defines snarl words as

words whose conceptual meaning becomes irrelevant because whoever is using them is simply capitalizing on their unfavorable connotations in order to give forceful expression to his own hostility. Terms for extreme political views, such as communist or fascist, are particularly prone to degenerate into snarl words (1990: 44).

The same definition could be used for purr words, only ―unfavorable‖ would be substituted by ―favorable‖ and ―hostility‖ would be substituted by ―amity‖. Examples would be words such as democratic, freedom or equality. The concept of purr and snarl words is already mentioned by George Orwell in his essay Politics and the English Language when discussing meaningless words, suggesting the common abuse of political words:

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‗something not desirable‘. The words ‗democracy‘, ‗socialism‘, ‗freedom‘, ‗patriotic‘, ‗realistic‘, ‗justice‘, have each of them several meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like ‗democracy‘, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different (Orwell 2007: 212-213).

Leech (1990: 43) mentions two kinds of purr and snarl words: 1) social groupings, e.g. nationality words or religious sects – American, Catholic, and 2) words referring to political ideas or movements – anarchism, communism, fascist, racist etc. I suggest dividing purr words into three subclasses: primary purr words, secondary purr words, and family relations words. Primary purr words include purely positive concepts, such as democracy, freedom, or peace. Secondary purr words include expressions whose meaning is very vague, and they denote the most appreciated fundamental values and principles of America, such as equality, justice, security, etc. Lakoff (2007: 70-71) describes the consequences of the common use of such words. Frequent repetition of both primary and secondary purr words leads to repeated

118 activation of extensive areas in the human brain, leading to inerasable brain change. Whenever such a word is uttered, ―all the frames and metaphors and worldview structures are activated again and strengthened – because recurring activation strengthens neutral connections‖ (2007: 71). The third, a somewhat specific subclass of purr words - family relations words - include especially expressions denoting family members as well as other expressions related to family life, such as mother, father, parents, kids, get married, etc. Even though these are far from Orwell‘s description, they perfectly fit into Leech‘s conditions, i.e. ―that their conceptual meaning becomes irrelevant because whoever is using them is simply capitalizing on their favorable connotations‖ (Leech 1990: 44). As for the opposite of purr words, snarl words (e.g. fascism, communism, holocaust, genocide) appear in political discourse much less frequently, and it is not possible to classify them into such subgroups as is the case of purr words.

4.5.2 Purr and Snarl Words as Extreme Cases of Hidden Bias

The two above-described concepts, i.e. hidden bias (see chapter 4.4.1) and purr (snarl) words have so far been considered as two completely different things. However, I would like to show that these two concepts are interconnected and that purr and snarl words are actually extreme cases of positive and negative hidden bias. As can be seen in the diagram, the denotative meaning of expressions that can be considered as unbiased outweighs the connotative meaning. In the case of both positive and negative hidden bias, both denotative and connotative meanings are important, so that it depends especially on the context in which the particular expression is used. At the end of the scale, there are purr and snarl words, where the denotative meaning has almost completely lost its importance, and the use of these words is based on their connotations, in order to evoke either positive or negative feelings.

119

It is difficult to draw the line between hidden bias and purr and snarl words, as it is not always clear which group an expression belongs to. However, the analysis has shown that all purr and snarl words can be defined as very positive or very negative abstract nouns that tend to be used out of context and are not directly related to the topic discussed. This difficulty can be shown on the expressions freedom and free. Whereas freedom can be considered as a purr word, as it fulfills the above described criteria, the adjective free, although related to the noun freedom, has to be looked at in a different view, and e.g. in the phrase free Iraq has to be considered as a biased adjective. Leech (1990: 45) explains the share of conceptual and associative meanings, or, in other words, how denotation and connotation varies from word to word. In some words, it is irrelevant; in others, it can take up to 100% of the total meaning of the word. In such cases, the message conveyed is strongly affected. He shows this on the words typewriter, America and fascist:

typewriter America fascist (neutral, unemotive) (somewhat emotive) (snarl word)

(Leech 1990: 45)

120

In other words, typewriter is a neutral unbiased expression, America can be considered a biased noun, and fascist is a snarl word. Biased words as well as purr and snarl words can be used on their own, but they can also be considered basic units of lexical doublespeak and then be used as components of higher doublespeak forms, in particular euphemisms (see chapter 4.6.3).

4.5.3 Purr and Snarl Words in the Debates

4.5.3.1 Primary Purr Words

There are altogether six expressions in the corpus which can be considered as primary purr words. These expressions are peace, democracy, freedom, liberty, civil liberties, and the American dream. However, as evidenced by the table below, only three of these expressions, namely peace, democracy, and freedom, can be considered as prevalent in all three elections and are used by both Republicans and Democrats. The following two expressions, i.e. liberty and civil liberties, are closely related to the much more widely used word freedom, and the last purr word, the American dream, is used especially in the elections of 2008, mostly by John McCain.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Peace 20 5 4 29 2 12 1 15 Democracy 5 6 6 17 8 2 4 14 Freedom 6 19 3 28 3 3 0 6 Liberty 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 Civil Liberties 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 American 0 0 4 4 1 1 1 3 Dream Total 31 39 17 87 14 18 7 39

The following graph shows the difference between the use of purr words by Republican and Democratic candidates. It is clear at first sight that purr words are much more common in the language of the Republicans in all three elections. In all three periods, the number of purr words used by the Democratic presidential candidates does

121 not even reach 50% of the number of purr words used by the Republican presidential candidates. At the same time, the graph shows that the elections of 2004 were the most abundant in purr words. This concerns both Republican and Democratic parties. Purr words were used the least in the last election analyzed, i.e. in the year 2008.

39

31

18 14 17 Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates 7

2000 2004 2008

Graph 4: Primary Purr Words

A detailed analysis of the purr words peace, democracy, freedom, liberty, civil liberties, and the American dream follows. The expressions freedom, liberty, and civil liberties are discussed under one heading, as they are very closely related.

Peace

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 20 2 2004 5 12 2008 4 1

It is apparent from the table that there is a substantial difference between the years 2000 and 2008, when Republican candidates use the word peace much more than Democratic candidates, and the year 2004, when the Democratic candidate John Kerry

122 uses it more than his opponent George W. Bush. The use of this word by Republican candidates steadily decreases throughout the three elections, while in the case of Democratic candidates, there is a sudden rise in the year 2004 compared to the year 2000 and then again a sudden fall in the year 2008.

In 2000, it is used mainly as a noun, but in two cases George W. Bush uses it as an adjective in the phrases peace process and peace table. Out of the twenty uses of the word, George W. Bush employs it twelve times in the collocation keep the peace. The United States should keep the peace in various parts of the world or at least should be active in helping keep the peace. Al Gore uses it in a similar way, but instead of using the verb keep he uses the verb promote. Besides the above-mentioned uses, the word peace is also used in the compounds peaceful and peacekeepers or peacekeeping force (see chapter 4.6.4).

The year 2004 is the only one when the word peace is used by the Democratic candidate (John Kerry) more than by the Republican candidate (John W. Bush). Bush employs it in the collocations keep the peace and achieve the peace. As for John Kerry, in eleven out of his twelve uses of the word peace, it is used in the collocation to win the peace, where the word win can be considered a biased word. In all the cases, Kerry is insinuating that Bush did not manage to win the peace in Iraq. The last use of the word is in the collocation to sustain the peace.

In 2008, the word peace is used four times by John McCain and only once by Barack Obama. This only includes the use of the word on its own. Compounds based on this word are discussed in the chapter on euphemisms (see chapter 4.6.4). There is a slight difference in the contexts in which the two candidates use this word. While John McCain speaks about peace coming somewhere, making peace somewhere, Barack Obama claims that Russia is a threat to peace. Thus, for John McCain, peace is a challenge and the result of reforms and is something we should fight for, whereas for Barack Obama it is a concept that is threatened and we should defend it. McCain uses it in a rather abstract way, whereas Obama is quite concrete.

123 denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: international, lasting, freedom from or the cessation of war or inner, real, relative positive violence OCD: lasting, permanent, fragile, uneasy, relative

The above described collocations and uses of the word peace correlate with the qualifying collocates found in the OCD and COCA. If peace is, apart from other things, fragile, uneasy and we want it to be permanent or lasting, it is logical that we have to struggle to win it, bring it somewhere, achieve it, or keep it. It can be concluded that in most of the cases the word peace serves two arguments. Those who promote or advocate the presence of American troops abroad use it to support this idea, and we can thus say that they use it in order to promote their own good. On the other hand, John Kerry, who disagrees with the presence of American troops abroad, uses it in the negative form, i.e. that George W. Bush did not have a plan to win the peace and did not manage to win the peace, implying that he himself would be able to do that. Thus, he is also using the word peace in order to intensify his own good.

Democracy

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 5 8 2004 6 2 2008 6 4

The word democracy is not used by the presidential candidates as much as it might have been expected (cf. Orwell 2007). The number in each debate ranges from two to eight. Republican candidates use it more in 2004 and 2008, whereas in the case of Democratic candidates, it is used the most frequently in the year 2000 by Al Gore.

In most of the cases when democracy is mentioned in 2000, it is implied that it is endangered and we must fight for it, make efforts to preserve it, or even renew it. This concerns either the United States themselves or democracy in the developing world.

124

Ex.: We would like to see the Russians use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: And Haitians have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore democracy. (Al Gore)

There is some difference in the use of the word democracy in 2004. Whereas John Kerry uses it in both cases when speaking about Russia, thus expressing some doubts about the situation in this country, George W. Bush uses this word more universally, when speaking about various countries and regions, including Russia, Palestine, and Iraq.

Ex.: Vladimir is going to have to make some hard choices, and I think it's very important for the American President as well as other Western leaders to remind him of the great benefits of democracy, that democracy will best help the people realize their hopes and aspirations and dreams. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: This is a very important country to us, and we want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy. (John Kerry speaking about Russia)

In 2008, John McCain uses the word democracy when speaking about Georgia being a tiny country and a tiny democracy, and also in the context of Obama destroying the ―fabric of democracy‖. Besides that, he proposes three times the league of democracies and then speaks about France, Britain, and Germany as democracies. On the other hand, Obama uses the word in completely different contexts. He speaks about encouraging, promoting, and wanting democracy in countries such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. Then he speaks about Russia and China not being democracies. In those cases in which democracy is meant as a specific type of country, they are supposed to be good countries, American friends, and it should be an American aim to make democracies from all countries which are not yet, and it is worth making an effort to establish democracy where there is not yet.

125 denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of neutral a state, typically through elected COCA: American, representatives Western a) a state governed by a democracy neutral OCD: Western b) the practice or principles of social positive equality

The meaning of the word democracy is considered rather tricky by several authors. Different meanings of this word are discussed by Webb (2006: 40) and Naess, Christophersen, and Kvalø (1956), according to whom the word democracy is exceptional and very unique among other vocabulary, as ―it has most probably never happened before that the same political term, which for a very long time has been used in eulogistic, derogatory and neutral ways, has been almost unanimously accepted as the main political slogan of nearly all political parties‖ (Naess, Christophersen, and Kvalø 1956: 137-8, qtd. in Poole 2006: 195). This view is also supported by Wasserman and Hausrath (2006: 48), who claim that the word democracy can mean almost anything, from a system in which citizens are offered political choices, to the term by which autocratic governments characterize themselves. Poole (2006: 195) defines the word democracy as the synonym for virtue, claiming that this is how it was perceived throughout the 20th century. He defines the contemporary Western view of democracy as ―a complicated interlinked process – one involving elections, institutions, law, the protection of minorities, a government which grants freedom of press and of speech to all‖ (Poole 2006: 199). However, he points out that this definition only applies to the industrialized West and quotes the Muslim scholar Gilles Kepel (Poole 2006: 195), according to whom the connotations of the term Western democracy are very negative for most of the educated Muslim middle class. According to Kepel (2004: 293), ―the Arabic word damakrata, which designates the democratization process, is frequently used pejoratively, signifying a change imposed from without‖. In any case, the American presidential candidates are speaking to the American audiences, for whom democracy is self-evidently something desirable. This is attested by the most common collocates. Both the OCD and COCA show that the most common collocates are Western and American, i.e. the kind of democracy corresponding to the definition above. The fact that the presidential candidates want to promote or encourage

126 democracy in other parts of the world intensifies their own good in the eyes of their electorate.

Freedom and (Civil) Liberty The next two purr words are the expressions freedom and liberty. The incidence of the word freedom is shown in the following table.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 6 3 2004 19 3 2008 3 0

It is evident from the table that the word freedom is used more often by Republicans, in particular by George W. Bush in 2004, when he uses it nineteen times, whereas his opponent, John Kerry, only uses this word three times. As for the word liberty, the result is very similar. It is only used by George W. Bush in 2004, when he uses it nine times. No other occurrences of this word were found (except for the collocation civil liberties, which is discussed below.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 0 0 2004 9 0 2008 0 0

Thus, when these two words are counted together, they are used twenty-eight times by George W. Bush in 2004, but their use by other candidates and in other election years is relatively unimportant. In most of the cases, the word is used similarly to the word democracy, i.e. something the United States regards highly and is worth spreading around the globe.

Ex.: He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. (George W. Bush in 2004)

Ex.: We'll continue to promote freedom around the world. Freedom is on the march. (George W. Bush in 2004)

127

The word freedom is presented as something necessary to fight for and those who make the effort to achieve freedom are good. It is interesting to notice the relation of American freedom to freedom in other parts of the world. The logic is imposed that we (Americans) have to fight for freedom somewhere else in order to have freedom in the United States. But this connection is never explained, and it is taken for granted that people will accept this logic. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. the power or right to act, speak, or COCA: religious, positive think as one wants academic, political, a) absence of subjection to foreign economic, positive domination or despotic government individual, personal, human OCD: academic, b) the power of self-determination artistic, creative, attributed to the will; the quality of being positive economic, independent of fate or necessity intellectual, political, press, religious, sexual

Webb (2006: 47) claims that ―unless the context is imprisonment or some grim totalitarian regime, the word freedom on the lips of a politician is often a bludgeon to stun us into not thinking precisely‖. Poole (2006: 191) claims that the expression war on terror is too negative, as it is a war against something and that‘s why a positive aspect was added to the war – war for freedom. Poole then brings to mind George W. Bush‘s catchword ―freedom is on the march‖ related to the situation in the Middle East. It is evident from the definitions of the word that the denotative meanings themselves can be perceived very positively. The collocates show that freedom is a very general concept, connected to almost any human activity. Denotation, connotation and positive evaluativeness of the word liberty shows that they can be considered as synonyms. This is confirmed by Poole (2006: 190), according to whom ―freedom and liberty are used essentially interchangeably in English‖.

128 denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by positive authority on one‘s way of life, behavior, COCA: religious, or political view individual, personal, human a) (usually liberties) an instance of this; OCD: civil, a right or privilege, especially a statutory positive individual, personal, one political, religious b) the state of not being imprisoned or positive enslaved

On the other hand, the incidence of the expression civil liberties is very rare in the corpus; it is only used once by Barack Obama.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 0 0 2004 0 0 2008 0 1

He uses it when speaking about the Pakistani dictator Musharraf.

Ex.: And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy. (Barack Obama)

These two sentences actually include three doublespeak expressions which support Obama‘s point of view on Pakistan. First he uses the negatively biased noun dictator when speaking about Musharraf. Then he mentions the fact that the purr concept of civil liberties was suspended. And in the end, he blames the United States for not promoting another purr concept, democracy. These are three very negatively perceived facts and at the same time a way to imply that Musharraf is a bad person and the United States‘ policy towards him has been bad, while using doublespeak.

129 denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the positive community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech --- a) (civil liberties) individual rights protected by law from unjust positive governmental or other interference

In order to define the meaning of civil liberties, expressions like ―good of the community‖, ―freedom of action and speech‖ and ―protection of individual rights from unjust interference‖ are used. This is also the case of the word peace, which is defined as ―freedom from or the cessation of war or violence‖. This proves that these words somehow exist on their own, separated from the rest of the vocabulary, one purr word being defined by the help of other similar purr words.

The American Dream Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 0 1 2004 0 1 2008 4 1

The expression the American dream is used the most in 2008. It is used four times by John McCain and once by each of the Democratic candidates. John McCain uses the expression the American dream twice when speaking about owning one‘s own home and twice about having one‘s own business and employing people. He always uses it with the verb realize. Barack Obama uses it in the context of having a good education and thus having the chance to be successful. In the case of John Kerry, the expression is used more vaguely, he tries to appeal to poor people, saying that they work hard, obey the rules, and play for the American dream. Al Gore employs this expression in connection with affirmative action. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates the traditional social ideals of the US, such as equality, democracy, and positive --- material prosperity

130

Both the definition and the context in which the expression is used by the candidates show that it can include any sphere of American people‘s life and is very vague. The presidential candidates proceed from the presumption that people are patriots, they love America, and thus allusions to anything which is precious for Americans will evoke positive emotions. That‘s how they try to intensify their own good. Furthermore, similarly to the above described expression civil liberties, the expression the American dream is again defined by help of other purr words such as equality, democracy, and prosperity. This confirms the theory of a closed group of empty expressions the use of which has no other meaning than evoking positive feelings in the listeners.

4.5.3.2 Secondary Purr Words

Lakoff (2007: 70) lists several words which he calls ―contested concepts‖, describing them as ―concepts with a common shared core that is unspecified, which is then extended to most of its cases based on your values‖. He names words such as equality, security, accountability, etc. Nine of them can be found in the analyzed corpus. These include the words security, accountability, prosperity, justice, stability, flexibility, transparency, equality, and fairness. Although these words have a lot in common with primary purr words described above (i.e. peace, freedom, democracy, liberty, civil liberties, and the American dream) and they correspond to Leech‘s definition of purr words (see above), I consider them subordinate to the primary purr words such as freedom or democracy. In other words, first we need democracy, freedom, peace, etc. in order to yearn for security, prosperity, justice, equality, etc. That is why I have decided to call the first narrow group of purr words primary purr words and the second, somewhat wider group of purr words, secondary purr words.

131

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Security 2 10 14 26 11 15 11 37 Accountability 10 0 4 14 6 1 1 8 Prosperity 1 0 3 4 14 0 3 17 Justice 0 9 0 9 0 1 1 2 Stability 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 Flexibility 4 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 Transparency 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 Equality 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 Fairness 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 Total 19 22 28 69 32 20 18 70

As can be seen in the table above, the most common secondary purr word is the word security, followed by accountability, prosperity, and justice. However, there are essential differences between Republicans and Democrats. For example, the words security and prosperity are much more common for Democratic presidential candidates, whereas justice and flexibility are used more by Republican candidates. This can be explained by the different priorities of the different parties as well as by the different contexts of the three elections analyzed. The following graph shows the frequency of secondary purr words as used by Republican and Democratic candidates throughout the three election years. Whereas there is a steady rise in the Republican use of this kind of words, in the case of Democratic candidates there is a considerable fall in 2004 compared to 2000 and then a slight decrease again in 2008.

132

32

28

22 19 20 18

Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates

2000 2004 2008

Graph 5: Secondary Purr Words

Security

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2 11 2004 10 15 2008 14 11

Out of all the secondary purr words, the most common one is the word security. With the exception of George W. Bush in the year 2000, it was used by every candidate ten to fifteen times within each debate. There are thus no major differences between Republicans and Democrats. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. the state of being free from danger or positive threat a) the safety of a state or organization COCA: social, against criminal activity such as positive national terrorism, theft, or espionage OCD: national, b) procedures followed or measures state, internal, taken to ensure the safety of a state or positive personal, home organization c) the state of feeling safe, stable, and positive free from fear or anxiety

133

Similarly to the most common collocates found in the COCA and the OCD, the most common contexts in which the word security is used in the presidential debates are in 2000 and 2008 by far national security, followed by social security and retirement security. However, in 2004, the collocation homeland security predominates. In 2000, the use of the word security is very vague. It is used quite abstractly mainly by Al Gore for whom security (in particular national security and retirement security) is one of the key points and priorities.

Ex.: The key is job training, education, investments in health care and education, environment, retirement security. (Al Gore)

Ex. 9: The United States has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability. (Al Gore)

As the international political situation had changed since then, the use of the word in the 2004 elections is somewhat different. Both candidates speak about investing in homeland security and about not allowing other countries to have a veto about American security.

Ex.: My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security, to $30 billion a year. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: This President thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. (John Kerry)

Furthermore, George W. Bush keeps stressing that a free Iraq will have a positive impact on American security, whereas John Kerry claims that he would do a better job in homeland security. In any case, the use of the word security in 2004 is restricted to the context of national or homeland security.

Ex.: I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular, but I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security. (George W. Bush)

134

Ex.: And I'm going to put in place a better homeland security effort. (John Kerry)

This restriction continues in 2008, when both John McCain and Barack Obama use the word security practically exclusively in the collocation national security, arguing about what is good and what is bad for the United States of America. John McCain reminds the electorate that he has more experience with national security issues than Barack Obama.

Ex.: But the important thing is -- the important thing is I visited Afghanistan and I traveled to Waziristan and I traveled to these places and I know what our security requirements are. (John McCain)

Ex.: And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges. (John McCain)

The use of the word security can thus be summarized as the argument about who can guarantee more of it. They not only try to persuade the public that they are better in this field, but in particular John Kerry and John McCain argue that their opponent is worse in this, thus implying that they should be afraid of danger and threat. The candidates thus use this expression in order to intensify their own good or in order to downplay their opponent‘s good.

Accountability

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 10 6 2004 0 1 2008 4 1

The word accountability is used especially in the year 2000, when George W. Bush employs it ten times and Al Gore six times. In 2004, it is used only once by John Kerry and not used at all by George W. Bush. In 2008, it is used more often again.

135 denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates OCD: democratic, financial, managerial, moral, the fact or condition of being positive parliamentary, accountable; responsibility police, political, professional | government, police

The Oxford dictionary defines accountability as ―the fact or condition of being accountable‖, it is thus the case of a circular definition and it is necessary to define the adjective accountable. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates required or expected to justify actions or positive --- decisions; responsible

In 2000, the word accountability is used predominantly by George W. Bush in the collocation strong accountability and by Al Gore in the collocation new accountability. Both of them speak about it as of something desirable. The most common context in which this word is used is the context of education, when both of the presidential candidates claim that schools should have accountability.

Ex.: We can close an achievement gap, and it starts with making sure we have strong accountability, Jim. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: I agree with Governor Bush that we should have new accountability, testing of students. (Al Gore)

In both 2004 and 2008, the use of the expression accountability is vaguer; the candidates express support for accountability, in the case of John McCain in 2008 in combination with transparency and reform.

Ex.: Why can't we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government? (John McCain)

136

Prosperity

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 1 14 2004 0 0 2008 3 3

The word prosperity is only used in the debates of 2000 and 2008. Furthermore, its use by George W. Bush in 2000 and by both candidates in 2008 is rather marginal. On the other hand, in 2000 it is used extensively by the Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: economic, future, greater, shared, American OCD: economic, the state of being prosperous positive material | future, lasting, long-term | general, global, national, world

Similarly to the word accountability, the word prosperity is also defined by the Oxford dictionary by a circular definition, i.e. ―the state of being prosperous‖. It is thus necessary to define the adjective prosperous. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: peaceful, successful in material terms; flourishing stable, democratic, positive financially free, strong, safe, healthy

As mentioned above, the word prosperity is used in particular by the democratic candidate Al Gore in the year 2000. According to him, the United States was enjoying the biggest prosperity ever after the eight years of Bill Clinton‘s (i.e. Democratic) presidency and he claims he wants this prosperity to continue under his presidency in the following four years. He longs for prosperity that will be enduring and will enrich all American people and families.

137

Ex.: I want tax cuts for the middle-class families and I want to continue the prosperity and make sure that it enriches not just a few but all of our families. (Al Gore)

Prosperity does not only mean ―the state of being successful in material terms‖ and ―the state of flourishing financially‖, but the most common collocates of the word prosperous also show that what is prosperous is also peaceful, stable, democratic, strong, etc. Al Gore is thus implying that under his administration the United States will continue in this direction. The word prosperity is thus used in order to support his predecessor‘s good, and as his predecessor is from the same party as him, people should understand that it is also his own good. In 2008, however, the word prosperity is employed in a completely different way. It is used three times by both John McCain and Barack Obama. In all three cases, John McCain uses it in the vaguest sense possible, in combination with another purr word – peace. The use of these two words in McCain‘s utterance can be considered as the purest demonstration of purr words that have no other meaning than evoke positive feelings in the listeners. Obama, on the other hand, reacts to these McCain‘s pronouncements, trying to negate them and play them down.

Ex.: We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. (John McCain)

Ex.: And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us. (Barack Obama)

It can thus be concluded that in the 2008 election debates John McCain uses the word prosperity not just to intensify his own good, but actually to transfer the good to himself, this being not founded on any tangible basis. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to stand in his way, not allowing him to do it.

138

Justice

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 0 0 2004 9 1 2008 0 1

The word justice is used mainly by George W. Bush in the debates of 2004. It also appears once in the debates of 2008, when it is pronounced by Barack Obama. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. just behavior or treatment COCA: criminal, a) the quality of being fair and social reasonable positive OCD: economic, b) the administration of the law or natural, social authority in maintaining this

George W. Bush uses the word justice in 2004 in the meaning 1. b), claiming that Al Qaida terrorists have been brought, are being brought, or will be brought to justice. In this case, the word justice is used to support the positive point of view on the military intervention in Iraq, which George W. Bush is justifying and John Kerry, on the other hand, is criticizing.

Ex.: But again, I want to tell the American people, we're doing everything we can at home, but you better have a President who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again. (George W. Bush).

By repeating that the terrorists are being brought to justice, he supports the opinion that the military operation in Iraq makes sense. As justice can certainly be considered a positive aspect of the operation, by mentioning it repeatedly Bush attenuates the negative aspects of the war, such as the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. It can thus be claimed that the purpose of the use of this word is to downplay his own bad. John Kerry‘s use of the word justice is very vague, completely out of context, in combination with the biased verb fight and another purr word – equality.

139

Ex.: That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this Earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. (John Kerry)

Stability

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 1 1 2004 1 0 2008 1 1

The word stability is only used once by each candidate except for John Kerry, who does not use it at all. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: political, financial, economic, social the state of being stable positive OCD: long-term | economic, financial, monetary, price | political, social

As the word stability is defined as ―the state of being stable‖, it is necessary to quote the definition of this adjective. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. (of an object or structure) not likely to COCA: peaceful, give way or overturn; firmly fixed democratic, positive predictable, strong, a) not likely to change or fail; firmly secure, prosperous, established reliable

There seems to be a slight discrepancy between the denotative meaning defined in the Oxford dictionary and the most common collocates that appear in the COCA. While the definition in the Oxford dictionary focuses on the quality of an object or structure, describing stability primarily as a physical quality, the collocates show that it is used predominantly in a much more abstract sense, stability being closely connected to peace, democracy and prosperity.

140

In 2000, George W. Bush speaks about keeping regional stability in the Balkan Peninsula, and Al Gore speaks about the United States being strong to promote stability. In both cases, the word stability is used together with other purr words. George W. Bush uses it together with the word peace, and Al Gore uses it together with the words peace and security. These collocates correspond to the most common collocates found in the COCA.

Ex.: I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: The United States has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability. (Al Gore)

In 2004, this word is only used once by George W. Bush when he is speaking about stability in Iraq. The context in which this word is used changes in 2008. Both John McCain and Barack Obama speak about a threat to the stability of a particular region. The regions are different: whereas McCain has the Middle East in mind, Obama, who uses this word together with the purr word peace, is worried about Russia and its neighbors.

Ex.: And our challenge right now is the Iranians continue on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, and it's a great threat. It's not just a threat -- threat to the state of Israel. It's a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. (John McCain)

Ex.: Well, I think that, given what's happened over the last several weeks and months, our entire Russian approach has to be evaluated, because a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region. (Barack Obama)

George W. Bush employs the word stability in the same way in both 2000 and 2004, the only difference being the locality: in the former year, it is the Balkans, and, in the latter year, it is Iraq. Nevertheless, the purpose of the word is to support his point of view that American troops should stay in those particular regions. The sentence uttered by Al Gore is very vague and can be considered as pure doublespeak, as it contains

141 three biased words (strong, help and promote) and three purr words (peace, security and stability). On the other hand, both sentences uttered in the presidential debates in 2008 evidence the attitudes of the two candidates towards the two countries mentioned. By implying that Iran in the former case and Russia in the latter case are threat to stability, and according to the collocates thus also threats to peace and democracy, both McCain and Obama imply that these countries are potential enemies of the United States.

Flexibility

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 4 0 2004 1 0 2008 1 0

The word flexibility is used only by Republican candidates, in particular by George W. Bush in 2000. Democratic candidates do not use this word. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. the quality of bending easily without COCA: greater, neutral breaking regulatory, a) the ability to be easily modified neutral maximum, great, increased OCD: considerable, enormous, great | added, additional, b) willingness to change or compromise positive extra, increased, more | maximum, total | enough, sufficient

Two of the meanings of flexibility are fairly neutral, referring in particular to the quality of physical objects. However, the meaning 1. b) can be considered as positive, as the ability to reach a compromise is desirable in politics. Most of the collocates found in both the COCA and OCD manifest that flexibility is expected to increase and be greater than it is. This confirms the positive perception of this concept. This is also how it is used by the Republican candidates. According to them, there either is enough flexibility or there needs to be more.

142

Ex.: There needs to be flexibility for teacher training and teacher hiring with federal money. (George W. Bush, 2000).

Ex.: Our commanders have got all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed. (George W. Bush, 2004)

As flexibility is perceived as something desirable, those who claim that they want more of it are also perceived in a positive way.

Transparency

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 0 0 2004 0 0 2008 5 0

Out of all the candidates in all three election years, John McCain is the only one who uses the word transparency. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: greater, full, the condition of being transparent neutral increased, increasing, financial

Also in this case, it is necessary to define the adjective transparent, as the definition of the noun transparency is based on it. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. easy to perceive or detect neutral COCA: open, clear, a) (of an organization or its activities) positive accountable open to public scrutiny

The meaning of the word can be defined with the help of the word open, which is used in the definition in the Oxford dictionary and also the most common collocate that appears with the word transparent in the COCA. The third most common collocate

143 in the COCA is the word accountable. Out of the five uses of the word transparency by John McCain, in three cases it is used together with the word accountability. Similarly to accountability, transparency is presented as a desirable positive concept.

Ex.: It's a system that cries out for accountability and transparency and the adequate funding. (John McCain)

There does not seem to be any other purpose of the use of this word than simple appreciation by the public for whom transparency as well as accountability is highly valued.

Equality

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 0 0 2004 1 2 2008 0 0

The word equality only appears three times in the presidential debates in 2004, when it is uttered once by George W. Bush and twice by John Kerry. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: racial, social, economic, full, political, the state of being equal, especially in greater positive status, rights, or opportunities OCD: greater | economic, legal, political, racial, sexual, social

Similarly to many of the previous purr words, the Oxford dictionary offers a circular definition also for the word equality, which is defined as the state of being equal. That leads us to the definition of the adjective equal.

144 denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. being the same in quantity, size, neutral degree, or value COCA: opposite, a) (of people) having the same status, free positive rights, or opportunities

The most common collocate opposite shows that the word equal suggests that two completely different opposite things have the same status, rights and opportunities. Furthermore, according to the collocates of the word equality, the most common context in which it is used is racial equality. As for the actual use of the word equality in the presidential debates, it is used in very patriotic contexts. George W. Bush speaks about it in connection with the Constitution of the United States and John Kerry uses it together with another purr word justice and when speaking about furthering the cause of equality in our Nation.

Ex.: We can have health care for all Americans. We can further the cause of equality in our Nation. (John Kerry)

Fairness

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 1 0 2004 0 1 2008 0 1

The word fairness is used the least often out of all the purr words; it is only used once by George W. Bush in 2000, once by John Kerry in 2004, and once by Barack Obama in 2008. The word itself is not defined in the Oxford dictionary, so it is necessary to look for the definition of the adjective fair, to be able to deduce the meaning of the word fairness. denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates treating people equally without COCA: favoritism or discrimination (definition positive fundamental, of ‗fair‘) procedural, basic

145

The definition of the word shows that it is very close in meaning to the word equality. However, the most common collocates are more general than the collocates of the word equality; instead of racial or social, fairness is just fundamental, procedural or basic. General use and vagueness is also the case of the use of this word by John Kerry and Barack Obama, the latter presidential candidate uses it together with another purr word – justice.

Ex.: We have a long distance yet to travel in terms of fairness in America. (John Kerry)

Ex.: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people. (Barack Obama)

4.5.3.3 Family Relations Words

I find it necessary to introduce the category of family relations words as a special sub-category of purr words. Though these words also play on the positive associations that they evoke in people, the difference is that, unlike the above-discussed purr words, they do not stand for abstract American values, but actually quite the opposite – for basic relations within families. The difference between such expressions as mother and mummy or father and daddy are discussed by Cruse (1986: 274). Cruse claims that such pairs of expressions differ in respect of expressive meaning, the two latter cases being more expressive than the first two cases. Analogically, I claim that such a difference is present between words like people and parents, woman and mother, progeny and children, etc., when the word denoting a member of a family or a family relation always bears more expressivity than the neutral word. This could lead to triplets of words such as man – father – daddy, woman – mother – mummy, but also, elderly people – grandparents – grandma and grandpa, where the first word bears the least expressivity and the third word the most. The strategy of choosing words with positive expressive meaning is manifest in the presidential debates, when the candidates use words denoting family and other close

146 relationships instead of more general and neutral words. The use of such words can be categorized into four broad groups. These are United States’ future, American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, candidates’ background and private life, and poor people.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Candidates’ background and 5 10 11 26 22 14 6 42 private life United States’ 1 7 4 12 9 5 4 18 future Military 6 9 5 20 0 18 2 20 missions Poor people 6 3 0 9 15 5 6 26 Total 18 29 20 67 46 42 18 106

The table shows that family relations words are more common in the case of Democratic presidential candidates. Most of these words can be classified in the category candidates’ background and private life. The second most common category for Democrats is poor people, for Republicans it is military missions. This is logical, as for Democrats it is important to show concern about the lower classes of the population, for Republicans, on the other hand, it is important to show the positive sides of American military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The graph below shows the development of the use of family relations words throughout the three periods. There is substantial difference between Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Whereas Democratic candidates use these words most in the year 2000 and in the following periods their use decreases, Republican candidates use it most in the year 2004. The year 2008 is the only one when the Republican use of these words exceeds the Democratic use.

147

46 42

29

18 20 18 Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates

2000 2004 2008

Graph 6: Family Relations Words

Candidates Background and Private Lives

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 5 22 2004 10 14 2008 11 16

Using words denoting family members and relations in this context can be divided into three different subcategories.

1) The candidates speak about themselves, they describe the circumstances in which they grew up, or they speak about their own wives and children.

They seem to do this in order to relate what they are saying closer to people or to stress the fact that politicians are normal people who have families and relations. They are thus intensifying their own good. For example, John McCain and Barack Obama tend to describe the circumstances in which they grew up. John McCain speaks about his father being out of

148 home and thus actually being raised only by his mother. Barack Obama mentions the fact that his mother was single and their family was poor.

Ex.: I grew up in a family where my father was gone most of the time because he was at sea and doing our country's business. My mother basically raised our family. (John McCain)

Ex.: I had a single mom and my grandparents raised me and it was because of the help of scholarships and my grandmother scrimping on things that she might have wanted to purchase and my mom, at one point, getting food stamps in order for us to put food on the table. (Barack Obama).

The aim of saying these things seems to be the effort to try to get closer to the common people and show them that there are actually not many differences between them and their voters. It seems this is also the reason why John McCain speaks about the education of his children, and also of himself, Obama, and their wives.

Ex.: And we have to be able to give parents the same choice, frankly, that Sen. Obama and Mrs. Obama had and Cindy and I had to send our kids to the school -- their kids to the school of their choice. (John McCain)

Ex.: Because they wanted to have the same choice that you and I and Cindy and your wife have had. And that is because they wanted to choose the school that they thought was best for their children. (John McCain)

A somewhat different case is when McCain speaks about him and his wife being adoptive parents.

Ex.: But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. (John McCain)

He speaks about it in order to support his point of view on abortion, one of his arguments being that it is better if the child is adopted than when it is aborted.

149

2) They speak about their running mates. However, this only happens in 2008 in the case of John McCain when he speaks about Sarah Palin. He tries to persuade people that Sarah Palin is a good vice-presidential choice. One of the ways to achieve this is to speak about her private life and the fact that she has a child with Down‘s syndrome.

Ex.: And she has ignited our party and people all over America that have never been involved in the political process. And I can't tell how proud I am of her and her family. Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too.

3) They speak positively about the families of their opponents. This is a special case, as it seems to contradict the general tendency to use doublespeak in order to support one‘s own good, as in this case the candidates support their opponents. This happens in 2000 and 2004, when both Democratic candidates speak about their opponent‘s father, George Bush Sr. They often use the words father or dad.

Ex.: In the Senate I was one of only ten Democrats, along with Senator Joe Lieberman, to support Governor Bush's dad in the Persian Gulf War Resolution. (Al Gore)

Ex.: You know, the President's father did not go into Iraq--into Baghdad, beyond Basra. (John Kerry)

Another case when the candidates speak positively about their opponents is when they say how they like and appreciate the opponent‘s wife or children. This is a procedure that takes place in every election and is more or less mutual. The Democratic candidate praises the Republican candidate‘s family and vice versa.

Ex.: The man loves his wife and I appreciate that a lot. And I love mine. The man loves his family a lot, and I appreciate that, because I love my family. (George W. Bush, 2000)

Ex.: As I said last time, I've watched him with the First Lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters—he's a great father. (John Kerry)

150

United States’ Future

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 1 9 2004 7 5 2008 4 4

This is also a very broad category and the contexts in which family relations words that fit into this category differ a lot. The common feature is that the candidates speak about children, grandchildren, and kids in relation to the future of America or of the world. The most common contexts are mortgaging our children, the necessity of high quality education for our children, protecting them and loving them. However, the most common context is the environment, with all the Democratic candidates, and in some cases also the Republican candidates, claiming that we don‘t want to hand our children a damaged planet.

Ex.: I have a plan to protect the environment so that we leave this place in better shape to our children than we were handed it by our parents. (John Kerry)

Ex.: But when we can -- when we have an issue that we may hand our children and our grandchildren a damaged planet, I have disagreed strongly with the Bush administration on this issue. (John McCain)

Putting stress on the children might influence the people‘s point of view on the subject. There might be some who don‘t care what happens after their death. However, taking into consideration one‘s own children, hardly anyone would want them to have a hard life or suffer as a consequence of irresponsible behavior of their parents.

151

Military Missions

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 6 0 2004 9 18 2008 5 2

As American military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were both initiated by George W. Bush during his first presidential period, it is logical that family relations words related to this topic are most often used in the presidential debates before the elections in 2004. The purpose of using these words differs in the case of George W. Bush and John Kerry. In both cases, such words are used to support the candidate‘s point of view on the subject; in the case of George W. Bush, they are used to justify the missions, in the case of John Kerry, they are used in order to highlight the horror of these missions. The same approach is taken by the candidates in 2008, especially by John McCain, who uses family relations words in this context in the same way as George W. Bush did in 2004. George W. Bush and John McCain mention wives whose husbands, and mothers whose sons died in Iraq and who understand that these losses are not in vain, as well as the soldiers themselves who said that they want to stay there and don‘t want their kids to have to go back there.

Ex.: And you know, I think about Missy Johnson, who is a fantastic young lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina, she and her son, Bryan. They came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. I told her, after we prayed and teared up and laughed some, that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy, because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don't want defeat. (John McCain)

Barack Obama reacts by also mentioning a mother of a soldier who died there.

152

Ex.: Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck, sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through. (Barack Obama)

Speaking about particular mothers, sons, and husbands makes the point of the candidates more immediate and gets the issue closer to people. Suddenly they are not professional soldiers for whom this is their job, but they are sons of mothers similar to themselves and their children. Thus, people are more likely to identify with the opinions of these people than with opinions of the politicians, and when McCain says that some mother whose son died in Iraq wants the United States to continue in the war, this might persuade people about this issue. A similar effect is caused by the use of the word Christmas by John McCain. Even though the word Christmas does not denote a family member or relation, it enhances the emotiveness of what McCain is saying.

Ex.: He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, "I will -- I will wear his bracelet with honor." And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, "But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain."

The fact that the woman‘s son died before Christmas makes his death even worse as Christmas is the time of family reunion and sharing happy moments. However, despite this fact, the woman insists on American troops staying in Iraq, and McCain has to promise to her he will take care of it. That seems like a good argument why people should support him in this issue and elect him the next president so that he can make this poor woman‘s wish come true. This topic is treated in a somewhat different way by John Kerry in 2004, who apart from claiming that he would be a better Commander-in-Chief than George W. Bush and he would get the kids home, puts stress on the horror and dying of people‘s sons and daughters in Iraq and indirectly blames Bush‘s administration for this.

Ex.: We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of twelve thousand Humvees aren't armored. I've visited some of

153 those kids with no limbs today because they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right body armor. I've met parents who've, on the Internet, gotten the armor to send their kids. (John Kerry)

This is a way to intensify his opponent‘s bad. The main idea is to use words like sons or kids instead of soldiers. To claim that kids or sons are maimed is different from claiming that soldiers are maimed, because people can identify themselves more with what is going on and the negative feelings are more imminent.

Poor People

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 6 15 2004 3 5 2008 0 6

The use of family relations words when speaking about poverty and poor people is again more common for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates, in particular for Al Gore in 2000. In particular, Democratic candidates use words such as father, kids, and family to support their point of view on the necessity to help poor families. In the case of Barack Obama, these family relations words are connected to euphemisms meaning poor people (see chapter 4.6.4.1).

Ex.: And then we'll fill other gaps by covering the parents of those children when the family is poor or up to two and a half times the poverty rate. (Al Gore)

Ex.: But it's also that his entire life he has never forgotten where he came from, coming from Scranton, fighting on behalf of working families, remembering what it's like to see his father lose his job and go through a downward spiral economically. (Barack Obama)

The purpose of these sentences is to evoke compassion and make those who are in a better situation feel sorry for these poor people. People will probably sympathize

154 with them more when they have in mind the poor children than the poor adults themselves as the children can hardly do anything about their parents‘ situation.

4.5.3.4 Snarl Words

The direct opposite of purr words is snarl words. However, these are much less common that their counterparts. There are only snarl words corresponding to primary purr words, as secondary purr words and family relations words do not have any negative counterparts. All snarl words in my corpus are words referring to dictatorships from the past and can be divided into two subcategories: 1) Fascism and the Second World War and 2) Communism and the Cold War. The first group includes the words genocide, ethnic cleansing and holocaust; the latter group includes the words communist, cold war, and KGB.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Genocide 1 1 4 6 3 2 3 8 Ethnic cleansing 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 Holocaust 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 1 Communist 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Cold War 0 0 4 4 0 1 1 2 KGB 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 1 Total 2 1 15 18 7 4 6 17

It is apparent from the table that not only are there fewer expressions fulfilling the criteria of snarl words, compared to the number of expressions fulfilling the criteria of purr words, but also that the frequency of using these words in the debates is much lower than the frequency of using purr words.

155

15

7

6 Republican Candidates 4 2 Democratic Candidates 1

2000 2004 2008

Graph 7: Snarl Words

The graph shows differences between the use of snarl words by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Whereas Democratic candidates use them quite steadily, the figures raging between four and seven, in the case of Republican candidates there is a huge discrepancy between the years 2000 and 2004 on the one side, and the year 2008 on the other side. Whereas George W. Bush uses just two snarl words in 2000 and one snarl word in 2004, John McCain employs this kind of words fifteen times, which makes him the most ardent user of snarl words among all the presidential candidates in all three periods.

Second World War

The expressions genocide, Holocaust, and ethnic cleansing are used interchangeably and in the same context. It is thus logical not to analyze their use separately, but to consider them as one item. In all cases, these expressions are used as an argument why the United States were right to intervene or have the right to do so in the future, if these are taking place somewhere in the world. As John McCain puts it, ―the United States of America are the greatest force of good‖. They thus cannot let genocide, Holocaust, or ethnic cleansing happen again. The interchangeability of these three expressions is manifested in the

156 following three tables, where it is evident that the denotative meaning, in particular of the expressions genocide and ethnic cleansing is practically the same.

Genocide denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates COCA: Cultural, the deliberate killing of a large group of Armenian, Nazi people, especially those of a particular negative OCD: Mass, nation or ethnic group Cultural

Holocaust denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear negative war a) (the Holocaust) the mass murder of COCA: Nuclear, Jews under the German Nazi regime Nazi, Jewish, during the period 1941-5. More than 6 American million European Jews, as well as negative members of other persecuted groups, were murdered at concentration camps such as Auschwitz.

Ethnic cleansing denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an negative --- area by those of another

The use of these snarl words has two advantages for the candidates. First, it does not require them to specify what exactly is going on in these countries, and their use thus has a simplifying function. Second, which is even more important, the candidates focus on the ―doing good‖ aspect and avoid mentioning any other possible interests of the United States in the countries in question. As a result, people take for granted that the United States should send forces into these countries basically for humanitarian reasons and do not think about the possible other reasons and consequences of the presence of the United States there any further.

157

Ex.: … but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. (George W. Bush)

Ex.: …that if it's something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that that alone would not be, that that wouldn't be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with troops. (Al Gore)

Communism and Cold War

All the expressions in this group, the words communist, Cold War and the abbreviation KGB are used in relation to Russia and American relations with contemporary Russia.

Communist denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates 1. a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each negative person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. a) The most familiar form of communism is that established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been understood in terms of the system practiced by the former Soviet Union and its allies in eastern COCA: Soviet, Europe, in China since 1949, and in international; some developing countries such as Cuba, godless, atheistic Vietnam, and North Korea. In this form OCD: revolutionary, of communism it was held that the state | international would wither away after the overthrow of negative the capitalist system. In practice, however, the state grew to control all aspects of communist society. Communism in eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s against a background of failure to meet people‘s economic expectations, a shift to more democracy in political life, and increasing nationalism such as that which led to the break-up of the Soviet Union

158

The expression communist is only used by Al Gore. He uses it when speaking about Slobodan Milosevic. By saying that Milosevic is a communist, Gore is implying that he is a bad person and an enemy of the United States, because communism is considered in the United States as something evil. The most common collocates found in the COCA, godless and atheistic support the idea of communism as something that does not conform to American values and lifestyle.

Ex.: He was the last communist party boss there and then he became a dictator that by some other label he was still essentially a communist dictator. And unfortunately now he is trying to reassert himself in Serbian politics.

Cold war denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates a state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, negative propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare, in particular. COCA: new, old (the Cold War) the state of hostility that existed between the Soviet bloc countries negative and the Western powers from 1945 to 1990

The use of this expression could be described as cautious frightening. On the one hand, the candidates keep saying that the Cold War is not going to happen again, while on the other hand, the fact that they keep repeating this statement could have a somewhat unsettling effect and make people afraid of Russia‘s future actions. The most common collocate in the COCA proves that the collocation new cold war is quite commonly used. America might thus need a president who will be able to handle Russia. And it is John McCain who seems to present himself as the one who understands Russia and knows how to cope with it. This is confirmed by the second snarl word which he uses in relation to contemporary Russia, i.e. KGB.

Ex.: It will not be a re-ignition of the Cold War, but Russia is a challenge. (John McCain)

159

KGB denotative meaning evaluativeness relevant collocates the state security police (1954–91) of the former Soviet Union with responsibility COCA: Soviet, for external espionage, internal counter- negative Russian intelligence, and internal ‗crimes against the state‘

As John Kerry‘s use of the expression KGB is rather marginal, John McCain remains its main user when he claims that Russia now has a ―KGB apparatchik-run government‖ and when he speaks about Vladimir Putin:

Ex.: Now, long ago, I warned about Vladimir Putin. I said I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B. He has surrounded himself with former KGB apparatchiks. He has gradually repressed most of the liberties that we would expect for nations to observe, and he has exhibited most aggressive behavior, obviously, in Georgia.

It is obvious that the explanation of this sentence is that we should be afraid of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government and that we should be careful of them. The figurative expression of three letters in Vladimir Putin‘s eyes insinuates that McCain is not as naïve as Obama as far as Putin is concerned and that he has known how bad Putin is for a long time already, and is thus more qualified to cope with him.

4.5.4 Conclusion

Purr words have been divided into two groups – primary purr words (peace, democracy, freedom, liberty, civil liberties and American dream) and secondary purr words (security, accountability, prosperity, justice, stability, flexibility, transparency, equality and fairness). The concepts that are categorized as primary purr words are superior to secondary purr words in the hierarchy of values. In other words, concepts expressed by primary purr words can be considered some kind of prerequisite to the concepts expressed by secondary purr words. We first need peace, freedom, democracy etc. in order to strive for security, prosperity, equality etc. There is one exception, and that is

160 the expression the American dream, which does not seem to fit into the same category as the words freedom or democracy. However, it perfectly fits into the definition of purr words by Leech (see chapter 4.5.1), fulfilling all the criteria to be considered a purr word. The expression the American dream is defined as ―the traditional social ideals of the US, such as equality, democracy, and material prosperity‖. It could thus be claimed that all the other purr words are encompassed in the American dream and from this point of view the American dream can be considered a general purr word standing above all the others. All the purr words seem to share certain features. Most of these expressions are defined in a circular way, i.e. either a word derived from the word itself is used in the definition (e.g. the word prosperity means ―the state of being prosperous‖), or, more frequently, the meaning of a purr word is described by employing another purr word or purr words. For example, the word peace denotes ―freedom from or the cessation of war or violence‖ or the expression civil liberties denotes ―the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech‖. Alternatively, the word in question is not defined by other purr words, but such purr words appear among the most common collocates of this word. When looking for the collocations of the word prosperity, one finds out that what is prosperous is usually also peaceful, stable, democratic, free and when looking for the collocations of the word stability, one finds that what is stable is also peaceful and democratic. This leads me to seeing purr words as a special category of vocabulary. The concepts denoted by these purr words are mutually interconnected, but such direct connections do not exist between them and other vocabulary. Purr words can thus be described as existing for their own sake, building on the positive associations they evoke in people. The mutual relation of primary and secondary purr words and the relation of these two with the rest of the vocabulary is demonstrated in the following diagram.

161

Primary Purr Words

Secondary Purr Words

Rest of the English lexicon

There are two main purposes of using purr words in the presidential debates. In the situations when these words are used vaguely and out of context, not related to any particular deed or action, their purpose is just to help the candidate look good in the eyes of American voters. As these are values highly appreciated by most of the population, the simple uttering of these words and claiming that this is what you want and what you will fight for arouses approval. However, purr words are also used in more concrete ways. They are supposed to support the candidate‘s viewpoints or deeds. For example, George W. Bush uses words like freedom or justice when justifying the American invasion into Iraq. Al Gore puts stress on prosperity, trying to capitalize on the situation in the United States after eight years of previous Democratic administration. These concepts are rightly called ―contested concepts‖ by Lakoff (2007: 70), because while using and repeating these words, the candidates seem to contest who will be better in establishing and reestablishing these values in America. Family relations words can be considered a specific kind of purr words. They are words denoting family members and family relations. The difference between them and primary and secondary purr words is that they are employed more in the contexts which are important for particular candidates, whereas purr words are more general and vague. Thus, Republican candidates employ these words mainly when speaking about the war in Iraq, whereas Democratic candidates employ them extensively when speaking about poverty or about the environment, because these are important issues for them. The purpose of the use of these words is in an overwhelming majority intensifying one‘s own good. However, in some of the contexts the analysis has shown that the candidates also use these words in order to intensify their opponent‘s good

162

(e.g. when candidates praise their opponent‘s family life) or to intensify the opponent‘s bad (e.g. when John Kerry is speaking about kids and sons dying or being maimed in Iraq). As for the frequency in which these words are used, in the case of Republican candidates, the frequency corresponds to the initial hypothesis, i.e. they were most used in 2004. However, in the case of Democratic candidates, they were used most in 2000, a little bit less in 2004 and there was a major drop in 2008. This can be partly attributed to different topics discussed in different debates. Compared to their counterparts – purr words, snarl words can be considered a marginal form of doublespeak, which is resorted to in the presidential debates only exceptionally. Expressions belonging to the two subcategories, i.e. words related to the Second World War and words related to the Cold War can be considered a parallel to primary purr words on the other side of the positive-negative scale. Secondary purr words and family relations words do not have any corresponding negative counterparts. It can thus be deduced that the presidential candidates prefer using positive words and avoid being too negative. As for the purposes of using snarl words, they are used in order to intensify somebody else‘s bad. However, it is not the opponent of those who use such snarl words, whose bad is intensified. It is usually some third party, either a country or regime in the third world, or Russia.

4.6 Euphemism

4.6.1 Introduction

Euphemism is widely discussed in the relevant literature (cf. Williams 1957, Mathesius 1975, Noble 1982, Leech 1990, Allan 2001, Cumming 2003, and Pinker 2007). Mathesius (1975) speaks about euphemism in connection with the emotional coloring of words, claiming that words can acquire positive or negative shades of meaning. Those that acquire negative emotional coloring are eliminated from the language either by sound change, which modifies the original form of the word, or by

163 being replaced with a euphemism, which is defined in this context by Mathesius as a word ―devoid of the objectionable coloring‖ (1975: 21). Leech (1990: 45) defines euphemism as

the practice of referring to something offensive or indelicate in terms that make it sound more pleasant or becoming than it really is. The technique consists of replacing a word which has offensive connotations with another expression, which makes no overt reference to the unpleasant side of the subject, and may even be a positive misnomer.

A somewhat different definition is offered by Allan (2001: 148), according to whom ―a euphemism is a word or phrase used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression. It avoids possible loss of face: either Speaker‘s own positive face or, through giving offence, the negative face of Hearer or some third party‖. The main difference between these two definitions is the perception of the purpose of the use of a euphemism. Whereas for Leech a euphemism is used in order not to be offensive or sound unpleasant, Allan puts stress on the speaker‘s positive face or the hearer‘s or other party‘s negative face. Keeping the speaker‘s positive face, which is defined by Allan as ―the want of a person to have their attributes, achievements, ideas, possessions, goals, etc. well regarded by others‖ (2001: 31), is the primary reason for using a euphemism as a form of doublespeak. It is connected to the above- mentioned purpose of the use of doublespeak, i.e. to intensify one‘s own good (Rank 1976) (see chapter 3.1.2). As claimed by Leech (1990: 46), a euphemism is usually used when the original word has very negative affective associations. The speaker strategically chooses a word which somehow stresses the positive or optimistic aspect of the phenomenon, and the negative or pessimistic aspect is thus played down. Williams (1957) describes the bond between the word and the concept. According to him the bond is sometimes ―so strong that the word is virtually equivalent to the thing‖ (Williams 1957: 198). He goes on to explain the relation between the primary stimulus of the object or experience and the response to the meaning of the word. He claims that when the primary stimulus and the word are associated for long enough, the word ―picks up aspects of the response elicited by the stimulus object itself‖ (Williams 1957: 202). The speaker or hearer is then stimulated by this response to respond further to this word in some way (Williams 1957).

164

Williams explains it with the word vomit, but it could be explained with any word which is connected to any negative experience people have. Such a word then becomes associated with the action and the meaning of the word becomes itself the stimulus of a negative response or reaction (Williams 1957: 203). As a result, people tend to replace the words which elicit negative responses with other words the response to which will be positive or at least neutral. The problem is that although the word is different, the meaning remains the same. And gradually the new word starts to have negative associations and starts eliciting negative responses too. This leads to what Bolinger (1980: 74) calls the domino theory of euphemism: ―the fall of each term leads to the fall of the next, and in some areas of meaning we find an endless series of terms each of which had its day of innocence and then fell from grace‖. The same concept is discussed by Pinker (2007), who uses the term euphemism treadmill. He speaks about terms denoting concepts from the spheres of sex, excretion, aging, or disease and claims that such terms ―become tainted by their connection to a fraught concept, prompting people to reach for an unspoiled term, which only gets sullied in its turn‖ (2007: 319-320). Williams (1957: 200-202) enumerates five processes of how euphemisms are created. They are widening of meaning, borrowing words from other languages (usually from Greek or Latin), semantic shift, metaphorical transfer, and phonetic distortions. This categorization is widely extended by Allan (2001: 164-165), who offers twelve sources for euphemisms: remodeling, phonetic similarity, acronyms, abbreviations, verbal play, circumlocution, hyperboles, understatements, metonymy, substitutes, synecdoches, and borrowing. The two categorizations are very clearly merged by Cumming (2003), who divides conventional euphemisms into two main groups: phonological (sound) and semantic (meaning). Phonological euphemisms are further divided into remodelings (part of the word is replaced) and clippings and abbreviations (part of the word is removed). Semantic euphemisms include metaphor, metonymy, circumlocution, hyperbole, and understatement. The term circumlocution, used by both Allan and Cumming, partly corresponds to Williams‘s term widening of meaning. Cumming (2003), unlike Williams and Allan, ignores borrowing words from other languages as a source of euphemisms.

165

4.6.2 Euphemism as a Form of Doublespeak

For the purposes of the analysis, I suggest merging Williams‘ classification with Cumming‘s class of semantic euphemisms, with Williams‘ category of widening of meaning encompassing Cumming‘s categories of circumlocution, hyperbole and understatement. The remaining two categories are metaphorical transfer and semantic shift, the latter encompassing metonymy and synecdoche. The basic processes of creating synonyms are demonstrated in the following diagram:

Widening of meaning is described by Williams (1957: 200) as a process when a general word is used instead of a specific word. As a result, the specific negative feature of the original word, which is supposed to be avoided, is lost in the general word, or at least the hearer does not make a direct connection to this feature. Sometimes the specific feature is softened by being spread into several words. The more words into which the features are spread, the softer the impact is. Williams (1957: 200) suggests three expressions for comparison: feces x solid human waste x that material of a non- fluid, non-gaseous nature which is the by-product of metabolic and digestive processes in higher order primates.

166

According to Beard (2000: 159) metaphors are easily found in the language of politics, and they play ―a central role in the construction of social and political reality‖. Molhova (1976: 82) describes metaphor as ―a fanciful idea based on actual facts but creating something that does not fully correspond to reality‖. She speaks about one common feature shared by the metaphorical expression and the original meaning, this feature usually being the only thing the two have in common and can be described as some kind of similarity. This common feature is not mentioned directly, it is up to the hearer to find it. The metaphor is created by the fusion of two things: the actual meaning of the metaphorical expression together with its context, and the primary meaning of the word or phrase used in the metaphor. We thus experience both meanings at the same time. (Molhova 1976: 82) Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 36) define metaphor as ―a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another‖. They give several examples such as ―argument is war‖, ―time is money‖, ―ideas are objects‖, or ―linguistic expressions are containers‖ and claim that the main objective of the use of such metaphors is understanding. For example, in the context of politics, very common sources of metaphor are war and sport (Beard 2000). It is easier for a layman to understand what the election is about when you use a sports metaphor and explain debates of presidential candidates as e.g. fight between two boxers. Similarly, an election campaign can be referred to as battle which is either won or lost etc. (2000: 21). However, although this method of putting emphasis on one aspect of a concept can help us understand it, it is unavoidable that some other aspects of the same concept are thus downplayed or even remain hidden. In other words, the metaphor highlights some aspects of the concept, but downplays or hides those which are not in accordance with the used metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 10). For example, when we speak about politics as a fight, we stress the aspect which makes believe that neither negotiation nor compromise belong into politics, as these are not involved in sports, war or contest. People then do not realize that politicians could also reach their aims through cooperation and discussion (Beard 2000: 22). This is generalized by Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 157), who claim that metaphors can define reality. Each metaphor has a ―coherent network of entailments‖ which either stresses or hides certain features of reality. By accepting such a metaphor, we ―focus only on those aspects of our experience that it highlights‖ and that ―leads us

167 to view the entailments of the metaphor as being true‖ (1980: 157). However, these truths are only true in relation to ―the reality defined by the metaphor‖ (1980:157).

By semantic shift, Williams (1957: 186-188) means particularly metonymy and synecdoche. Lakoff and Johnson define metonymy as ―using one entity to refer to another that is related to it‖ (1980: 36). Thus, it ―allows us to focus more specifically on certain aspects of what is being referred to.‖ As a result of this, the use of metonymy ―affects the audience‘s perception of and attitude to the original thing‖ (Beard 2000: 26). According to Molhova (1976), there are several differences between a metaphor and a metonymy. While metaphor is based on the similarity of two entities, in the case of metonymy, it is rather contiguity. Another important fact is the finding that in the case of metonymy the abstract is usually used for the concrete, whereas in the case of metaphor the concrete is used for the abstract (Molhova 1976: 87). Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 38) put metonymies into several categories: the part for the whole, producer for product, object used for user, controller for controlled, institution for people responsible, the place for the institution, and the place for the event. When metonymy is supposed to be used as a euphemism, the metonymical term usually names the activity which happens before, simultaneously with, or after the activity we want to speak about (Williams 1957: 200).

4.6.3 Hidden Bias and Purr Words as Basic Components of Euphemism

Biased words as well as purr and snarl words can be used on their own (see chapters 4.4 and 4.5), but they can also be considered as basic units of doublespeak and then be used as components of higher doublespeak forms – euphemisms. The analysis has shown that all three basic categories of euphemism, i.e. widening of meaning, metaphorical transfer, and semantic shift may in some cases include a biased word or a purr word, supporting the euphemism. This is shown in the following diagram. A purr word or a biased word makes part of a compound or a phrase, which can then as a whole be considered a euphemism.

168

I have thus identified nine ways euphemisms can be created as a form of doublespeak:

1. Widening of meaning 2. Widening of meaning based on a purr word 3. Widening of meaning based on a biased word 4. Metaphorical transfer 5. Metaphorical transfer based on a purr word 6. Metaphorical transfer based on a biased word 7. Semantic shift 8. Semantic shift based on a biased word 9. Semantic shift based on a purr word

4.6.4 Euphemisms in the Presidential Debates

The following table shows euphemisms that are used in at least two different periods by at least two different candidates. These euphemisms can be categorized into twelve topics or ―meanings‖ for which they stand. The topics are related to social issues such as abortion or unemployment, one economic issue, i.e. tax cuts, and several issues

169 related to war, e.g. aggression or evil countries. The last line, which is distinguished from the others by a different color, shows the numbers of other euphemisms, used only in one particular period. These are discussed in detail in the subchapters below.

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Abortion 2 9 1 12 4 6 2 12 Poor or common 16 3 7 26 4 2 17 23 people Rich or 6 2 5 13 4 2 4 10 influential people Unemployment 0 1 1 2 0 3 2 5 Policy against 4 0 0 4 7 2 0 9 discrimination Disadvantaged 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 children Tax cuts 20 8 0 28 1 0 1 2 Military missions 9 2 7 18 5 0 4 9 Aggression/attack 3 7 2 12 1 6 2 9 Evil countries 1 1 3 5 0 0 3 3 War 0 1 4 5 7 1 1 9 Win the elections 7 0 0 7 6 1 0 7 Euphemisms used only in particular 14 21 19 54 11 20 7 38 years Total 86 56 49 191 50 43 43 136

The table shows that euphemisms used in the presidential debates most often stand for poor or common people, rich or influential people, abortion, and in the case of Republican candidates also for tax cuts. Two other expressions very frequently replaced by various euphemisms are military missions and aggression or attack. The development of using euphemisms throughout the three periods as well as the differences in the frequency of using euphemisms between the representatives of the two parties is shown in the following graph. Euphemisms are used most frequently by George W. Bush in the year 2000; however, this is partly caused by his frequent use of the expression tax relief for tax cuts. Otherwise the use of euphemisms is relatively even, Republicans using them slightly more than Democrats in both 2004 and 2008.

170

86

56 50 49 43 43

Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates

2000 2004 2008

Graph 8: Euphemisms

4.6.4.1 Euphemisms Used in More than One Period

Abortion

Abortion could be considered a taboo word, and euphemisms related to this topic are used in all periods by all candidates. In most of the cases, Republican candidates‘ euphemisms are based on the word life, which can be considered as a metonymy for child. The bias consists in the positive - negative opposition life – death. Democratic candidates‘ euphemisms are based on the words choice or choose, putting emphasis on this aspect of abortion, i.e. the fact that choice should be given to the woman to decide whether she wants to keep the child or not.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency culture of life shift/bias 1 to be pro-life shift/bias 1 total 2

171

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency woman's right to choose widening 3 anti-choice group widening 1 total 4

In 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore use two euphemistic expressions related to abortion. Both of George W. Bush‘s expressions are based on the positively biased noun life. When he says that he is pro-life or supports the culture of life, it is very difficult, almost impossible to oppose him. Because not to be pro-life or not to support the culture of life implies that you are pro-death or support the culture of death. This thus raises the question of abortion being death without actually asking it explicitly and at the same time implying that it actually is death. Al Gore‘s euphemisms are based on the word choice, meaning that the woman can choose whether she wants the baby or not. It is considered her responsibility and implies that those who are anti-choice are actually ―interfering, patriarchal dictators‖ (Poole 2006: 2).

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency (promote) culture of life shift/bias 4 promote life shift/bias 1 destruction of life shift/bias/bias 1 destroy life shift/bias/bias 3 total 9

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency other choices widening 1 (woman‘s) right to choose widening 2 choice is a woman‘s choice widening 1 family planning widening/bias 1 destruction of life shift/bias/bias 1 total 6

The same or very similar euphemisms are employed by the presidential candidates in the election debates of 2004. However, in the case of the expressions destruction of life and destroy life it is taken one step further, as two biased words, one positive and one negative are employed. The biased noun life is used together with the

172 negative noun destruction or verb to destroy, again, similarly to the previous cases, implying that to abort a child means to kill it. As for the expression family planning, it does not stand for abortion as such, but rather for using contraception, used in the context of abortion. The euphemism is based on the biased noun family, and by connecting sex with family, it makes the issue more serious.

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency (proudly) pro-life shift/bias 1 total 1

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency pro-choice Republicans and Democrats widening 1 (both) those who believe in choice (and widening 1 those who are opposed to abortion) total 2

In 2008, John McCain also strives not to use the word abortion in any form when speaking about himself and his opinions. He prefers the term pro-life to the term anti-abortion. It is intensified by the adverb proudly (for hidden meaning of the word proud see chapter 4.4.2). As for Barack Obama, when speaking about himself, he never uses the word abortion either. It seems to be unimaginable to say that you are pro-abortion. Although McCain keeps saying that Obama agrees with abortion, Obama very consistently uses the word choice and pro-choice, exactly like his predecessors. This word is very general and does not have the negative connotations the word abortion presumably has for the majority of American population.

Poor or Common People

The most common euphemisms are those denoting common or poor people, usually in contrast to rich people. As these people form the majority of voters, it is necessary for the candidates to speak about them in a positive way.

173

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency hard-working people who pay the bills widening 6 working people widening 4 those/people at the bottom end of the metaphor 4 economic ladder low income people widening 1 people whose lives have been turned metaphor 1 upside down total 16

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency people left behind metaphor 2 average person widening 1 lower income groups widening 1 total 4

The most common method of forming these euphemisms is by widening of meaning, in some cases combined with hidden bias, or by metaphor. In the case of widening, Bush uses the very general word people and specifies it by the adjective working or even hard-working. One of the meanings of the word working is ―having paid employment‖. Thus, it is implied that working people is a synonym to employees even though rich or influential people are not those who do not work. In the expression low income people, stress is put on just one aspect of their low social status. It focuses on the initial cause of their low social status, i.e. low income and completely omits what is more important, i.e. the consequences of having low income. In the two metaphors used in this context, saying that they are at the bottom end of the economic ladder, the ladder metaphor implies that it is possible for them to climb up the ladder, and, at the same time, there is the possibility that those who are at the top end of the ladder will fall or climb down. It thus implicitly gives people hope for a change of their social status. Similarly, saying that their lives have been turned upside down implies that it is not their fault, they might actually feel victimized, and the presidential candidate offers to help these people himself. Al Gore uses similar strategies to George W. Bush. In the two cases of widening of meaning, he uses the general words person and groups. The word person goes with the adjective average, which means ―of the usual or ordinary amount, standard, level, or rate‖, not mentioning anything about what the usual or ordinary amount, standard, level,

174 or rate is. His expression lower income groups is almost equal to George W. Bush‘s expression low income people described above. The expression people left behind implies that it is not their fault that they are unemployed. The passive form suggests that it is the fault of those who left them behind, probably even us, society. And that is why we should now feel responsible for this and help them catch up again.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency lower income Americans widening 2 low- and middle-income families widening/purr 1 total 3

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency average people widening 1 people who make up America widening 1 total 2

In 2004, euphemisms similar to the previous period are used by George W. Bush. Stress is again put on the low income of these people, the difference being the use of the words Americans and families, which can be considered rather biased compared to the neutral nouns people and groups used in the debates of 2000. In addition to the expression average people, which was also used by Al Gore in 2000, he speaks about people who make up America. This wording gives the impression that these people are the most important in America and their welfare should be the new president‘s priority.

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency Main street shift 3 middle-income Americans widening 2 working families widening/purr 1 working Americans widening 1 total 7

175

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency working families widening/purr 5 working Americans widening 2 ordinary families widening/purr 2 Main street shift 2 little guy widening 1 middle class families widening/purr 1 ordinary Americans widening 1 ordinary American out there who‘s widening 1 collecting a paycheck real-world folks widening 1 those who‘ve got a family budget widening/purr 1 total 17

In the case of middle-income Americans, McCain says that we need to ―get middle-income Americans working again‖. This does not actually make any sense, as they have no income if they are not working now. Out of the remaining euphemistic expressions there are three worth focusing on. The expression Main Street is used in opposition to the expression Wall Street (see below), which is also used by both presidential candidates in 2008. The expression real- world folks seems to imply that those who are not meant by this expression, i.e. politicians or business people, are not from the real world. The origins and development of the use of the expression little guy are discussed by Safire (2006). He claims that the origins reach to the 19th century, and the expression little man or little guy has been used throughout the 20th century. Nowadays, the form little guy is preferred to little man, as, according to Safire, ―the little man leaves out women, and the little woman has a long- established patronizing connotation‖. As for the expression guy, he claims that ―by the recent neutering of the formerly male guy; ‗you guys’ is now sexless, or at least partly gender-free‖ (Safire 2006).

Rich or influential people

Rich or influential people are expressed by metaphoric expressions based on the opposition top – bottom or up – down, and expressions special interests or wealthy interests.

176

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency the top (1%) metaphor 5 special interests shift 1 total 6

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency the top 1%, those at the top metaphor 2 special interests shift 1 wealthy interests shift 1 total 4

In the case of the expression the top, very similarly to the above-described economic ladder metaphor, the implication is that those at the top might eventually fall down. The expressions special interests and wealthy interests allow the speaker not to specify what the interests are or whose interests exactly they are.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency upper income people widening 1 special interests shift 1 total 2

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency top income earners widening 1 special interests shift 1 total 2

In 2004, the euphemisms special interests are used again by both presidential candidates. In addition, both of the candidates use expressions based on the word income, stressing that this income is high. George W. Bush uses the expression upper income people, John Kerry the expression top income earners.

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency the big money people widening 1 special interests shift 4 total 5

177

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency those at the top metaphor 1 special interests shift 3 total 4

In 2008, each of the candidates uses one doublespeak expression for rich people. McCain uses the expression big money people and Obama those at the top. While McCain‘s expression just sounds rather childish, Obama‘s expression has a deeper hidden meaning. Similarly to some of the above-mentioned expressions, it might imply that these people can fall down and not be at the top any more.

Unemployment / being unemployed

Euphemisms of this sort can be found in the debates of 2004 and 2008. Most of them are based on the word to lose, but there are also some others, such as displace or lay off.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency it would have cost America a lot of jobs metaphor 1 total 1

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency lose jobs metaphor 3 total 3

The expression it would have cost America a lot of jobs is used by George W. Bush when speaking about the Kyoto treaty. Bush claims that joining this treaty would have such a result. This expression seems to put stress more on his disagreement with the treaty, as the verb cost implies a direct connection between the treaty and the rise of unemployment. In the case of the expression lose one’s job, the word lose implies that the unemployed person is himself/herself to blame for losing it. In other words, it is your fault when you lose something, not someone else‘s.

178

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency people who will lose their jobs metaphor 1 displaced workers widening 1 total 1

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency (to see his father) lose his job metaphor/purr 1 laid off (of their plant) widening 1 total 2

As displace means ―to take over the place, position, or role of‖, the explanation of the expression displaced workers might be ―workers whose place or position has been taken‖. It might imply that it is actually the fault of the new employee who takes the place of the unemployed one, and not the fault of the employer. In the wording to see his father lose his job, the word father is used and Obama thus plays with the emotive meaning of this word. It would be slightly different if he just said people lose their jobs, as voters might feel more compassion with a child whose father is unemployed than with the adult person himself/herself. To lay someone off means ―to discharge a worker temporarily or permanently because of a shortage of work‖. The expression focuses on the shortage of work, downplaying any other reasons why the person was dismissed.

Policy against discrimination

In 2000, instead of using the rather common expression affirmative action which is itself a doublespeak expression and is supposed to mean ―action favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination; positive discrimination‖ Bush uses the expression affirmative access.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency affirmative access widening/bias 2 affirmative action widening/bias 2 total 4

179

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency affirmative action widening/bias 7 total 7

Dorf (2000) analyses the difference between these two expressions as follows:

Traditional affirmative action gives some preference to minority applicants for jobs and educational opportunities. In contrast, ―affirmative access‖ aims to increase minority participation without relying on racial or other suspect criteria. Affirmative access thus seems to hold out promise as a color-blind alternative to affirmative action — one that will achieve the same end, while employing less controversial means. On closer inspection, however, affirmative access appears unlikely to deliver on that promise.

Howsoever faint the difference between these two expressions can be, it is obvious that the two words action and access differ in the degree of active involvement. Whereas action is ―the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim‖, the word access is much weaker, it is just ―the right or opportunity to use or benefit from something‖. But to have the right to something does not yet mean getting it. In both cases, these two nouns collocate with the biased adjective affirmative.

The expression affirmative action is also used in 2004 by John Kerry.

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency affirmative action widening/bias 2 total 2

Disadvantaged children

Several euphemisms are used in 2000 and 2004 in relation to low-quality public schools and delinquency.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency education system that leaves no child metaphor 2 behind so-called at-risk children widening 1 a child can walk in and have their heart metaphor/bias 1 turned dark total 4

180

According to George W. Bush‘s own words, the expression at-risk children means ―children who can‘t learn‖. However, by saying that they are at risk, they are divested of responsibility and it is the society led by the president that should do something to secure that there is not any risk. The widely used expression that somebody is left behind is very similar. Again, it is not the fault of the particular person or child who is left behind. The child is seen as a victim and there is a strong implication that those ahead should either wait for him/her, or the child should be given help in order to catch up with the others. The last expression is based on one of the meanings of one of its components, the word dark, which might mean ―suggestive of or arising from evil; sinister‖. Thanks to the depersonalization which is achieved by the use of the word heart (―the heart regarded as the center of a person‘s thoughts and emotions, especially love or compassion‖) instead of speaking about the child in general, there is again some kind of divesting of responsibility from the child. It‘s not the child who is evil, it is their heart, which turns dark wantonly, without the child‘s will. It follows from these three examples that when speaking about children, George W. Bush tries to give the impression that it is not the child‘s fault that s/he is either stupid or a delinquent. It is either the society‘s fault or the fault of some superior power. Thus, people should perceive these children as being good deep inside and be willing to give them another chance or help them instead of denouncing them.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency close a minority achievement gap metaphor 1 total 1

The expression close a minority achievement gap uttered by President Bush in 2004 actually means that poor children are becoming more successful at schools, thus that schools in poor areas are becoming better thanks to Bush‘s education policy. This metaphor can partly be seen as being politically correct, as Bush avoids mentioning that these children come from poor backgrounds.

Tax cuts

A common word used for tax cuts, in particular by Republican candidates, is the expression tax relief.

181

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency tax relief metaphor/bias 20 total 20

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency tax relief metaphor/bias 1 total 1

The word relief is fairly persuasive as its main meanings are ―a feeling of reassurance and relaxation following release from anxiety or distress‖ and ―the alleviation of pain, discomfort, or distress‖. The person using the expression tax relief thus admits that a tax is something unpleasant and implies that the taxpayers are supposed to be happy, because he is doing something good for them. In other words, a positive deed is made even more positive by being called this way. As for the word package, it is a commonly used metaphor whose objective is to simplify and avoid detailed explanation. A package means ―a set of proposals or terms offered or agreed as a whole‖. It is thus obvious that this relief is a consequence of several proceedings which do not have to be specified, though. The expression tax relief is also used eight times by George W. Bush in 2004 and once by Barack Obama in 2008.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency tax relief metaphor/bias 8 total 8

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency tax relief metaphor/bias 1 total 1

According to Lakoff (2004), the expression tax relief suggests that taxes are some kind of affliction, and as he wants to release people from this affliction, Bush is a hero, whereas those who agree with imposing this affliction or those who obstruct this relief, i.e. Democrats, are villains. As this expression is a Republican creation, Lakoff (2004) suggests that Democrats should not accept this Republican framing of the concept, but they should coin their own expression, corresponding more to their point of view, i.e. the fact that taxes are actually some kind of ―membership fees used to

182 maintain and expand services and the infrastructure‖ (Lakoff 2004). Such an expression, however, never took hold, and Democrats continue to use the Republican expression tax relief, supporting the Republican attitudes toward taxes as an affliction.

American military missions and occupying forces in third world countries

When speaking about American army abroad, euphemisms based on metaphors, hidden bias, and purr words are used.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency nation building, nation builders, nation metaphor/bias 5 building missions, to build the nations peacekeepers widening/purr 2 world's policeman metaphor 1 (world‘s) peacemaker widening/purr 1 total 9

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency nation building metaphor/bias 4 developing world widening/bias 1 total 5

In all cases, whichever of the above expressions is used, the interests of the United States or the real reasons for their presence in foreign countries are never mentioned. The welfare of the countries in question is always in focus, and American soldiers are those who build the nation or make or keep the peace. Bush himself puts into opposition two similar expressions world’s policeman and world’s peacemaker by saying ―I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped‖. Although the denotative meaning is the same, there is big difference in hidden meaning. Whereas policeman might evoke various kinds of feelings from fear to derision, peace is a purr word, and it is very improbable that anyone would disagree with the attempt to make or keep peace somewhere. The commonly used expression developing world is based on the biased adjective developing (or verb develop) which encompasses the positive meaning of

183

―grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate‖. Focus is put on this positive aspect of the third world countries, and all the negative aspects such as poverty and corruption are avoided.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency armies of compassion widening/bias 2 total 2

In 2004, the expression armies of compassion is used by George W. Bush. The euphemism is based on the biased noun compassion, which means ―sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others‖. Similarly to the other euphemisms used in the other periods that are based on the purr word peace, Bush focuses on the aspect of helping people in poor countries or countries suffering from war, but all the other aspects and reasons of American presence in those countries is downplayed.

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency peacemakers widening/purr 2 peacemaking organization widening/purr 2 peacemaking force widening/purr 1 peacekeepers widening/purr 1 peacekeeping force widening/purr 1 total 7

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency peacekeepers widening/purr 3 peacekeeping force widening/purr 1 total 4

In 2008, the purr word peace is used again in various compounds which are supposed to mean American military missions or occupying forces. All together, John McCain uses these expressions seven times, Barack Obama four times, the use of the euphemisms being the same as in the year 2000. As the word army is closely connected to war, and the politicians strive not to use the word war when speaking about American soldiers abroad, they use various expressions formed with the word peace, putting stress on the main aim of the army

184 which, according to them, is keeping peace there. The purr word peace is accompanied by general words such as keep, make, force, or organization.

Aggression / attack

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency use force widening 3 total 3

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency use force widening 1 total 1

In 2000, both candidates only speak very generally about the hypothetical possibility of using force. As the word force means ―coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence‖, it is rather abstract and somehow implies that a villain country is compelled or coerced to do what the United States want it to, leaving the responsibility on this state and not on the United States.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency authorization of force widening 1 disarm Iraq shift 1 use force widening 5 total 7

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency disarm shift 1 use force widening 3 threat of force widening 1 get tough with Iran widening 1 total 6

In 2004, euphemisms related to this issue are more common, as the candidates speak mostly about Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to the above-mentioned expression use force, they use its variants authorization of force and threat of force.

185

As for the expression disarm Iraq, it directly implies that Iraq is armed and thus dangerous for the United States. The metonymy puts stress on the final outcome of the attack and disregards the other aspects of such a military action. The expression get tough with Iran is used by John Kerry when speaking about nuclear proliferation. The vagueness of the expression prevents people from having a clear idea what exactly he would do, the word tough meaning ―demonstrating a strict and uncompromising approach‖; however, it shows the determination the future president is expected to have.

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency use of military power widening 1 actions and activities widening 1 total 2

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency (their) actions widening 1 (Russians) going (into Georgia) widening 1 total 2

In 2008, both candidates tend to use the widening of meaning when speaking about military aggression or attacking other countries. All the terms are very general understatements: actions, activities, or go somewhere. In all these cases the presidential candidates use the expressions to avoid specifying what is going on. As they are used in relation to the Russian aggression in Georgia, the reason might be the fact that they do not want to offend Russia or say something Russian politicians would not like.

Evil countries

In 2000 and 2008, George W. Bush and Barack Obama speak about rogue nations, rogue states and rogue regimes.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency rogue nation metaphor/bias 1 total 1

186

These expressions are based on the biased adjective rogue, meaning ―a dishonest or unprincipled man‖. This personification thus allows the person using it not to name any particular states while evoking negative feelings and fear in people.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency axis of evil metaphor/bias 1 total 1

In 2004, George W. Bush uses the expression axis of evil, coined by himself in his State of the Union Address in January, 2002. Originally meaning Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the axis of evil was later extended to other three countries: Cuba, Libya and Syria (US expands ‗axis of evil‘ 2002). The euphemism is based on the biased noun evil, whose denotative meaning is 1. ―profoundly immoral and wicked‖, 1. a) ―embodying or associated with the forces of the devil‖ and 1. b) ―harmful or tending to harm‖. It is thus easier to explain that we have to fight against evil than have to explain that we have to fight against those particular countries.

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency countries that don't like us very much widening 2 places in the world that harm our national widening/bias/purr 1 security total 3

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency axis of evil metaphor/bias 1 rogue states metaphor/bias 1 rogue regime metaphor/bias 1 total 3

In addition to the above-discussed expressions based on the biased adjective rogue and the expression axis of evil, McCain uses two more circumlocutions: countries that don’t like us very much and places in the world that harm our national security. Both of these expressions are rather vague; however, the second one is quite interesting as it is based on a biased verb – to harm – and a secondary purr word – security. It is logical that people will agree that the United States should act against such places.

187

War

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency conflict widening 7 total 7

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency conflict widening 1 total 1

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency conflict widening 1 total 1

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency (send our young men and women into) metaphor/bias 3 harm's way conflict widening 1 total 4

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency conflict widening 1 total 1

The word conflict is in general used very commonly in the sense of war. Although one of the meanings is ―a prolonged armed struggle‖, the primary meaning of the word remains ―a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one‖. This shows that the word itself is not as strong as the word war and evokes rather small arguments and differences, unlike the word war, which is used mainly in the historical context, e.g. the world wars. Nowadays, it is used mainly in the phrase war on terrorism. In addition to the word conflict, John McCain also uses the idiom harm’s way when speaking about sending soldiers to war. The idiom out of harm’s way is defined as ―in a safe place‖. Thus, instead of speaking about war, McCain is just saying that they are going somewhere where they are not safe from harm.

188

Win the election, being elected president

It seems to be a taboo to say that the candidates will be elected president or will win the election. As a result, they use the three following euphemisms in order to express this condition:

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency to be fortunate enough to earn your vote widening/bias 6 should I earn your confidence widening/bias 1 total 7

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency If you entrust me with the presidency, if I widening/bias 6 am entrusted with the presidency total 6

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency if Americans trust me with the widening/bias 1 Presidency total 1

The two biased words used by George W. Bush on which these euphemisms are based are the adjective fortunate and the noun confidence. Fortune is ―chance or luck as an arbitrary force affecting human affairs‖. This implies some distance between the result of the election and the electorate. In case he is not fortunate, it is not his fault or anyone else‘s. Confidence is ―the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone or something‖. Al Gore‘s expressions are based on the verb entrust which means ―assign the responsibility for doing something to (someone)‖. By saying this, he puts stress on the people‘s responsibility, on the fact that the results of the election are in their own hands. Furthermore, the word trust, included in this expression, means ―firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something‖. A hidden meaning of this might be his gratitude and appreciation of entrusting him with the presidency. This also applies to John Kerry in 2004.

189

4.6.4.2 Euphemisms Used Only in 2000

Euphemisms used exclusively in the year 2000 stand for eight different meanings. However, euphemisms standing for only one of them – when something is advantageous for the United States – are used by both George W. Bush and Al Gore. All the other euphemisms are used by one candidate or the other. Overall, George W. Bush uses the euphemisms described in this subchapter slightly more frequently than Al Gore.

George W. Bush Al Gore Advantageous for the US 2 1 Being wrong 3 0 Blaming, arguing 7 0 Kill 2 0 Have to choose 0 1 Spend on other purposes 0 1 Stop money from 0 7 vanishing Wind, solar, hydropower 0 1 Total 14 11

Euphemisms used by both candidates

Advantageous for the United States

The combination of biased adjective strategic and vague noun interest is used when speaking about activities that are advantageous for the United States.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency strategic interest widening/bias 2 total 2

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency strategic interest widening/bias 1 total 1

190

It is a commonly used expression that gives more emphasis on the issues they are speaking about. Strategic means ―relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them‖ and interest means ―the advantage or benefit of a person or group‖. By using this emphatic expression, the speaker avoids specifying why that particular thing or activity is advantageous for the United States.

Euphemisms used only by George W. Bush

Being wrong

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency practicing fuzzy math again. metaphor 3 total 3

When George W. Bush does not agree with Al Gore about economic figures, he uses the expression fuzzy math. When speaking about computing and logic, the word fuzzy is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as ―relating to a form of set theory and logic in which predicates may have degrees of applicability, rather than simply being true or false. It has important uses in artificial intelligence and the design of control systems‖. By using this expression, Bush implies that Gore is wrong and, at the same time, by using this jargon expression, he might give the impression of being well-educated which the electorate will probably appreciate as most people do not understand exactly what he is saying. However, using this expression allows him not to specify what he disagrees with and gives people the idea that Gore‘s figures are fuzzy, i.e. confused and wrong.

Blaming each other, arguing

The metaphors used for arguing or blaming each other tend to be expressions from everyday life, and they tend to belittle the situation, which then seems less serious than it might actually be.

191

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency finger pointing, pointing fingers metaphor 5 there's a lot of bickering in Washington, widening 1 D.C. squabbling widening 1 total 7

The metaphor finger pointing sounds quite childish and so do bickering and squabbling. Their meaning is ―to argue about petty and trivial matters‖ and ―quarrel noisily over a trivial matter‖ respectively. The word trivial is essential for the understanding of the meaning and confirms the above-mentioned belittling of these two understatements.

Kill

The positively biased noun life is used when speaking about killing or death in general. Instead of using the proper word kill, George W. Bush uses the word life with the verbs to disrespect or take.

2000: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency disrespect life (about guns) widening/bias 1 take somebody else's life metaphor/bias 1 total 2

It is important to look at these expressions together with the context in which they are used. George W. Bush uses both of them when speaking about gun control. Compared to his opponent, Bush is rather liberal in this issue. They speak about children who carry guns and are potential dangers. He argues that this is actually not their fault, but it is a more complex problem which will not be solved by gun control itself. The use of these euphemisms supports his point of view, as they somehow soften the fact that children kill people and reduces their responsibility for what they do.

192

Euphemisms used only by Al Gore

Have to choose

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency to be at a fork in the road metaphor 1 total 1

The expression to be at a fork in the road is used in the following context:

Ex.: We're at a fork in the road. We have this incredible prosperity, but a lot of people have been left behind. And we have a very important decision to make. Will we use the prosperity to enrich all of our families and not just a few? (Al Gore)

This metaphor is closely connected to what follows, i.e. leaving people behind. He claims that it is up to us to choose which way we will continue, but also whether we will let those left behind catch up or not. The metaphor of being on a road, choosing the right direction, speeding up and slowing down, some people being ahead of others, is a mild way of saying that people should be equal. It is more probable that people will identify with waiting for the slow and sick ones, than with e.g. paying higher taxes, even though the two are actually the same.

Spend on other purposes

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency use something as a piggy bank metaphor 1 total 1

This expression is used as a contrast to the following expression put something in a lockbox. Al Gore claims that while he would put the money for Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox, he implies that George W. Bush would use the money ―as a piggy bank for other programs‖. It is obvious that the aspect which is emphasized here is the fact that while it is almost impossible to get into a lockbox, it is very easy to break the piggy bank and spend the money.

193

Stop money from vanishing

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency put something in a lockbox metaphor 7 total 7

This metaphor is used by Al Gore when speaking about not using the money intended for Social Security and for Medicare for any other purposes. As a lockbox is ―a lockable container; a safe‖, the effect of using this metaphor might be the fact that people will really feel their money is safely deposited.

Wind, solar and hydropower

2000: Al Gore euphemism component frequency renewable sources of energy widening/bias 1 total 1

The expression renewable sources of energy is used once by Al Gore. It encompasses the biased adjective new, the verb to renew itself meaning ―give fresh life or strength to‖. This emphasizes the fact that no waste is left from these sources of energy (unlike, for example, nuclear power or coal).

4.6.4.3 Euphemisms Used Only in 2004

Of the six meanings for which euphemisms are used exclusively in 2004, only those standing for lying and not spending money are used by both presidential candidates. Both of these categories are fairly frequent. In addition, George W. Bush uses euphemisms instead of speaking directly about recession and concealing, while John Kerry uses euphemisms when speaking about nuclear energy and illegality. The frequency of euphemisms used by the two candidates exclusively in this period is practically equal.

194

George W. Bush John Kerry Lie 11 8 Not spending money 8 10 Recession 1 0 Conceal 1 0 Nuclear energy 0 1 Illegality 0 1 Total 21 20

Euphemisms used by both candidates

Lie

Both candidates use the word mislead. In addition to that, George W. Bush uses the expressions misstatement and it’s not credible. John Kerry speaks about Bush not being candid and about his figures not being accurate.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency mislead widening 6 misstatement widening 1 it‘s not credible widening 4 total 11

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency mislead widening 6 he has not been candid widening 1 (figures) are not accurate widening 1 total 8

The meaning of the word mislead is to ―cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression‖, while lie means ―an intentionally false statement‖. There are thus two differences between these synonyms. In the case of lie, stress is put on the intention of the speaker, and actually also on the speaker himself/herself, whereas in the case of mislead stress is put on the listener, on his or her wrong idea or impression. The word mislead is thus much weaker, as the fault for the misunderstanding is shifted from the speaker to the listener.

195

To misstate means ―make wrong or inaccurate statements about‖. Similarly to the word mislead, Bush avoids blaming Kerry for making these inaccurate statements intentionally. As for the other three expressions, they are based on the negation of three positive adjectives: credible, candid and accurate.

Not spending money

Other very frequent euphemisms that are used only in 2004 are those related to not spending money.

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency fiscal sanity widening/bias 3 fiscally sound widening/bias 2 fiscally conservative widening 1 be fiscal conservative widening 2 total 8

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency fiscal responsibility widening/bias 4 fiscally responsible widening/bias 3 fiscal discipline widening 3 total 10

All of these euphemisms are based on the adjective fiscal or adverb fiscally and the expressions sanity or sound, responsibility or responsible, conservative and discipline. The words sanity and sound can be considered as biased, their meaning being ―reasonable and rational behavior‖ and ―in good condition; not damaged, injured, or diseased‖ respectively. It is thus difficult to object to fiscal sanity or to being fiscally sound. The words responsible and responsibility are a very similar case, responsible meaning ―morally accountable for one‘s behavior‖. It can thus be considered in this context as a synonym of the word sound. The remaining two words – conservative and discipline – cannot be considered as biased, as they cannot be described as utterly positive; however, the logic remains the same. To be conservative or to have discipline can evoke in people the picture of

196 conservative parents who teach their children to be disciplined and do not allow them to spend money on unnecessary items, strongly implying that this is the correct behavior towards money.

Euphemisms used only by George W. Bush

Recession

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency tough economic times widening/bias 1 total 1

The expression tough economic times is based on the adjective tough. Although the meaning of tough in this context is ―difficult and requiring determination or effort―, it also encompasses the meaning ―able to endure hardship or pain‖, which is rather positive. Thus, we need to be tough to overcome these economic times. Furthermore, the expression somehow implies temporariness. The antonyms of the adjective tough are the adjectives lenient, light and easy. We can thus expect that after the tough economic times easy economic times should follow.

Conceal

2004: George W. Bush euphemism component frequency he forgot to tell you widening 1 total 1

The second euphemism used only by George W. Bush in 2004 is the expression he forgot to tell you. This expression is very similar to the above-analyzed euphemisms for lying. To forget means ―to inadvertently neglect to do or mention something‖. Bush thus avoids blaming his opponent for concealing something on purpose, he concedes that Kerry did not say it inadvertently. However, this euphemism could also be meant as irony.

197

Euphemisms used only by John Kerry

Nuclear energy

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency peaceful purposes widening/purr 1 total 1

The expression peaceful purposes is used in relation to nuclear power other than nuclear weapons. It encompasses the purr word peace, hence strengthening the negative aspect of all the other purposes for which nuclear power might possibly be used. Any such purposes might potentially be dangerous for the United States. It is thus justified to sanction any country that is developing them.

Illegality

2004: John Kerry euphemism component frequency out of the shadows metaphor/bias 1 total 1

The metaphor out of the shadows is used when speaking about people illegally living and working in the United States. They are hiding and are not seen, as if they were in the shadows. However, the explanation is not as simple as it might seem at first sight. The noun shadow is according to OED also ―used in reference to proximity, ominous oppressiveness, or sadness and gloom‖. This euphemism thus encompasses all these negative shades of meaning.

4.6.4.4 Euphemisms Used Only in 2008

Compared to the previous two periods, the difference in the frequency of using euphemisms between the Republican and Democratic candidates is much bigger in 2008, as John McCain uses nineteen euphemisms and Barack Obama only seven. The most common euphemism is the expression Wall Street for bankers responsible for the financial crisis. Additionally, John McCain uses quite frequently the doublespeak expression climate change. 198

John McCain Barack Obama Bankers 7 4 Global warming 6 1 Terrorists 2 1 Die 1 0 Ghetto 1 0 Handicapped children 2 0 Sex 0 1 Total 19 7

Euphemisms used by both candidates

Bankers

2008: John McCain euphemism frequency component Wall Street shift 7 total 7

2008: Barack Obama euphemism frequency component Wall street shift 4 total 4

The metonymical expression Wall Street is used by both John McCain and Barack Obama in contrast to the term Main Street, meaning common people. The advantage is that it is rather vague and allows them not to exactly specify any financial institution having a seat on this street. Wall Street is thus blamed for the crisis, but the concept is so abstract and vague, that no concrete people can take offence.

Global Warming

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency climate change widening 6 total 6

199

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency climate change widening 1 total 1

John McCain prefers the term climate change to global warming, which he does not use at all. Barack Obama uses both of these expressions once. While warming means ―the process of becoming warmer; a rising temperature‖, the word change has two important meanings. The first meaning is rather general: ―an event that occurs when something passes from one state to another‖. However, the second meaning, ―a difference that is usually pleasant‖, insinuates that climate change could actually even be perceived as some positive phenomenon. This finding is supported by Poole (2006: 42-43):

‗global warming‘ sounds sinister and menacing: it may conjure a picture of red-hot planet Earth, swathed in hellfire. ‗Climate change‘, by contrast, is what happens when you go on holiday, or switch on the air-conditioner at home, or the ‗climate control‘ in your sports-utility vehicle. Notice also that ‗climate change‘ modestly takes no position on the direction or quality of any possible change. It might get warmer, but then again it might get cooler, avoiding droughts; or rainier, which would be nice for the garden; or we might just have a picturesque dusting of snow every Christmas.

Logically, this expression is used much more by John McCain than by Barack Obama, as it is the latter who is a big supporter of green politics.

Terrorists

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency freedom fighters widening/purr 2 total 2

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency Folks who perpetrated 9/11 widening 1 total 1

It is interesting to focus on the difference in meanings of the expressions terrorists and freedom fighters. A terrorist is ―a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims‖, whereas a freedom fighter is ―a person who takes part in a revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their

200 government‖. Terrorism in a pursuit of political aims and revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal actually seem to be two very similar things, and it could be claimed that freedom fighter is a hyponym of terrorist, revolutionary struggle being a specific kind of terror. However, the word terrorist commonly refers to our enemies, whereas freedom fighters is used when referring to those the United States support. McCain uses it when speaking about ―Afghan freedom fighters driving the Russians out of Afghanistan‖. However, in the eyes of the Russians these could be considered as terrorists. Barack Obama‘s expression folks who perpetrated 9/11 brings to mind the events of that particular day, which certainly evokes unpleasant feelings in the people and thus might have a stronger impact on their feelings than the commonly used word terrorist.

Euphemisms used only by John McCain

Die

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency (Nearly 300 Marines) lost their lives metaphor/bias 1 total 1

Death and dying can generally be considered as taboo words, and even in politics politicians try to avoid them and when speaking about them choose to use other expressions. The expression to lose one’s life includes the verb to lose which might imply that it is the person‘s own fault that s/he does not have something any more. If someone loses his/her life, there is no one to blame.

Ghetto

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency low-income area widening 1 total 1

201

Although the expression low-income area does not itself sound very positive, it is still much weaker than the expression ghetto. A ghetto is defined as ―a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups‖. The expression low- income area emphasizes the economic hardship aspect of the district, but marginalizes all other aspects, such as criminality or bad living conditions.

Handicapped Children and their Families

2008: John McCain euphemism component frequency special-needs families widening 1 very special-needs children widening 1 total 2

The expression special-needs is used very commonly for disabled. However, according to the COCA, the adjective which most often goes with special-needs is low- income. This shows that this expression applies particularly to small children in low- income families. It is thus not clear whether a rich family with a disabled child is also a special-needs family or not.

Euphemism Used only by Barack Obama

There is only one euphemistic expression which Barack Obama uses and which does not have a counterpart in John McCain‘s language. It is the expression cavalier activity, which basically means sex.

Sex

2008: Barack Obama euphemism component frequency (they should not be engaged) in cavalier widening 1 activity total 1

The expression cavalier activity meaning sex seems to be Barack Obama‘s coinage. It is defined by the Urban Dictionary as ―Euphemism for sex. Used by Barack Obama in the final presidential debate against John McCain‖. He uses it when speaking about being pro-abortion, but at the same time he is trying to explain that young people

202 should be educated about sex. He is thus speaking mostly to the conservative voters who might consider it too rude if he spoke about it less prudently and more openly.

4.6.5 Conclusion

The hypothesis that euphemisms as one of the forms of doublespeak are used most in the period following the attacks of 11th September 2001, i.e. in the presidential debates of 2004, has not been confirmed. On the contrary, the use of euphemisms as a form of doublespeak was most frequent in the debates of 2000, i.e. the period preceding the above-mentioned attacks. In particular, the frequency in which euphemisms are used by George W. Bush in this period is very high. However, this can be ascribed to the overabundant use of the expression tax relief (twenty times out of eighty-six uses of euphemisms by George W. Bush in this period). Al Gore employs fifty euphemisms in this period. In the following two periods, i.e. in the years 2004 and 2008, Democratic candidates tend to use euphemisms slightly less frequently than Republican candidates (George W. Bush – 56, John Kerry – 43, John McCain – 49, Barack Obama – 43). Consequently, it can be concluded that Republican candidates do use euphemisms as a form of doublespeak more often than Democrats; the second hypothesis has thus been confirmed. As for the ways euphemisms are created, the results of the analysis are shown in the following table and two graphs:

Republican Candidates Democratic Candidates 2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total Widening 17 25 19 61 14 24 15 53 Widening / purr 3 1 10 14 0 1 13 14 Widening / bias 14 8 0 22 16 11 0 27 Metaphor 21 2 1 24 13 3 1 17 Metaphor / purr 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Metaphor / bias 28 9 4 41 5 1 4 10 Shift 1 2 14 17 2 2 9 13 Shift / purr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shift / bias 2 5 1 8 0 0 0 0

203

shift/bias Republicans 5% metaphor/bias 3% shift 10% widening 41% metaphor 16%

widening/bias 15% widening/purr 10%

Graph 9: Methods of Creating Euphemisms Used by Republicans

Democrats metaphor/bias 7% shift metaphor/purr 10% 1% widening 39% metaphor 13%

widening/bias 20% widening/purr 10%

Graph 10: Methods of Creating Euphemisms Used by Democrats

204

The analysis has shown that when euphemisms are used as a form of doublespeak, they are created by three possible methods: widening of meaning, metaphorical transfer, and shift of meaning. All three methods can be further supported by the use of so-called basic units of doublespeak, i.e. purr words or hidden bias. Only the combination of semantic shift and a purr word was not found in the debates, all the other combinations appeared at least once. The most common type of euphemisms used by American presidential candidates in the years 2000, 2004 and 2008 was widening of meaning, the second was metaphor, and the third was semantic shift. Widening of meaning itself and when supported by a purr word or by hidden bias constitutes 66% of doublespeak euphemisms of the Republican candidates and 69% of the doublespeak euphemisms of the Democratic candidates. Pure widening of meaning accounts for 41% of the euphemisms used by Republicans and 39% euphemisms used by Democrats. The analysis has thus shown that there are not any major differences in the creation of euphemisms between Republicans and Democrats. As already stated above, the only method of creating euphemisms that could not be found in the debates is the combination of semantic shift with a purr word. On the other hand, examples of combining semantic shift with two biased words or combination of widening of meaning with both a purr word and a biased word appeared in the debates, e.g. destruction of life or to destroy life (meaning abortion), and places in the world that harm our national security (meaning enemies). However, such cases are very rare. It is not possible to confirm that euphemisms are used in order to intensify one‘s own good, downplay one‘s own bad, intensify others‘ bad or downplay others‘ good, as stated in the third hypothesis. There seem to be several reasons why the presidential candidates resort to the use of euphemisms. In most of the cases, euphemisms are used in order to support the candidate‘s point of view on issues discussed, e.g. abortion or tax cuts. Many of the euphemisms are used to show that the candidate either is or is not in favor of somebody or something (e.g. countries or people). Most of the euphemisms are related to poor or common people and to various kinds of other social issues; in this case, the purpose of the use of the euphemism is to show compassion of the candidate with these people, as they constitute the majority of the American electorate. Euphemisms as a form of doublespeak are thus very close to political correctness.

205

5 Conclusions

Although the language whose purpose is to manipulate people‘s perception of reality and hence influence their political opinions has been investigated by an extensive number of scholars throughout the last four decades, the linguistic and in particular lexical-semantic aspect of this phenomenon is still rather unclear and the knowledge of this subject is to a large degree fragmented. The present thesis represents an attempt to consolidate different approaches towards such loaded language, generally termed doublespeak, and identify a linguistic means which serves this purpose. Based on the different approaches, doublespeak has been divided into three basic classes: lexical doublespeak, stylistic doublespeak and syntactic doublespeak. Lexical doublespeak encompasses two subclasses: favorable/unfavorable naming and elevation of meaning. While favorable/unfavorable naming consists in employing a positive or negative word (biased word or a purr/snarl word) by the speaker in order to influence the hearer‘s perception of facts on the positive/negative scale; elevation of meaning can be defined as the use of euphemism in order to make facts sound more pleasing or less rude and thus avoid negative feelings in the listener. Stylistic doublespeak is understood as a heading term for inflated language and political jargon, sometimes also called gobbledygook, officialese or bureaucratese. The third class of doublespeak – syntactic doublespeak – comprises techniques such as passivisation, nominalization, tagging, experiencer deletion or the use of the suffixes –able and –ible. The analysis has focused on lexical doublespeak, i.e. on hidden bias, purr and snarl words, and euphemisms and their employment in the United States presidential debates in the years 2000, 2004 and 2008. The results of the analysis can be summarized as follows:

1) Purr/snarl words can be considered extreme cases of hidden bias It has been observed that the concepts of hidden bias, purr/snarl words and euphemisms are closely related. The closest connection exists between hidden bias and purr/snarl words. Both of these concepts are based on the proportion of the relevance of denotative and connotative meanings of the particular expressions. In biased expressions, both meanings play an important role, e.g. in the expression brave young American (when speaking about American soldiers). By contrast, in purr/snarl words 206 the relevance of the denotative meaning is backgrounded, as the speaker plays on the extremely positive or extremely negative connotations of the expression, disregarding the context in which such an expression is used (e.g. in the sentences The United States has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability or We'll continue to promote freedom around the world. Freedom is on the march.) The relation between hidden bias and purr/snarl words can be expressed on a scale, where an unbiased expression is located in the middle of the scale. Towards the end of the scale, the relevance of the denotative meaning decreases, while the relevance of the connotative meaning increases, one end being negative and the opposite end being positive. This is demonstrated in the diagram below. However, it is necessary to take into consideration two more aspects, which contribute to the proper understanding of this issue, making it somewhat more complex. First, the positiveness or negativeness of an expression is not only based on its connotations, but also on the positive/negative evaluativeness of the denotative meaning itself. The final meaning is thus a result of the interplay of the positive or negative evaluativeness encompassed in the denotative meaning and the positive or negative connotations connected to the expression. Second, it is necessary not to see the scale as being composed of five separate classes (snarl word – hidden bias – unbiased expression – hidden bias – purr word), but rather as a continuum with several borderline cases. Adjectives derived from purr words, such as democratic or free, can be considered the most typical borderline cases. While I consider democracy and freedom to be purr words, as they are very vague abstract nouns, the words democratic and free should rather be perceived as extremely positive biased adjectives, approximating the purr words.

207

2) Hidden bias is based on four different semantic factors I propose four factors on which hidden bias can be based. First, the evaluativeness encompassed in the denotative meaning is so strongly positive or negative that it influences the attitude of the listener towards the concept, e.g. worry (feel or cause to feel anxious or troubled about actual or potential problems), phenomenal (remarkable or exceptional, especially exceptionally good), threat (a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger), criminal (person who has committed a crime), etc. Second, the concept has two or more denotative meanings, some of them being neutral and some being positive or negative. In such cases, the expression might be used neutrally in the given context; however, it still takes over the positive or negative features of the other meaning. The verb to fight (for something) can be mentioned as an example. Although the word is used in the meaning of ―to strive to achieve or do something‖, it takes from the meaning ―to take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons‖ the implication of physical activity and struggle, as is the case e.g. in the sentence I'll fight for a prescription drug benefit for all seniors and fight for the people of this country for a prosperity that benefits all. Third, there exists a positive – negative scale, and the word is situated on one of the extreme ends of such a scale. These are words like win – lose, build – destroy, succeed – fail, etc. Fourth, the bias is based on connotations which are inferred from the collocations most often appearing alongside a given expression in a corpus (e.g. the most common collocates of the word dictator are the adjectives brutal or ruthless). Most often, however, the bias consists in merging two or more of these factors. This is the case of e.g. the noun defeat, which is situated on the negative end of the scale defeat – victory, and at the same time whose negative meaning is enhanced by the most common collocates – humiliating and crushing. Another example of merging several factors on which the bias is based is the word hero. The positive denotative meaning ―a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities‖ is supported by its frequent collocates American and national. As a result, the word has strong patriotic connotations. It can happen that either the denotation or the common collocate is positive and negative at the same time. For example, the adjective young can have a neutral meaning ―having lived or existed for only a short time‖ or it can encompass positive

208 evaluativeness ―having the qualities associated with young people, such as enthusiasm and optimism‖ or negative evaluativeness ―immature or inexperienced‖. In such instances, the bias is strongly contextual and the hidden meaning of the expression varies in accordance with its actual use.

3) Purr words can be divided into three sub-categories: primary purr words, secondary purr words and family relation words As already mentioned above, purr/snarl words can be considered as extreme cases of hidden bias, where the connotative meaning overshadows the denotative meaning of the expression. At the same time, this denotative meaning is very positive (purr words), or very negative (snarl words). Purr words can be divided into two basic classes, purr words proper and family relations words. Purr words proper themselves can be further divided into two subclasses, primary purr words and secondary purr words. Snarl words, on the other hand, are rather rare and such a categorization is in their case not possible. Family relations words can be seen as a specific kind of purr words which express basic relations within families. Words like mother, father and son are used by the presidential candidates in the debates instead of woman, man and soldier, respectively. The use of such expressions corresponds to what Lakoff and Wehling (2012: 41-42) call basic-level words, i.e. words corresponding to people‘s most basic repertoire (examples of such basic-level words given by Lakoff and Wehling are chair or table for furniture; forest, soil, water, sky for environment, etc.). By contrast, both primary and secondary purr words denote fairly vague positive values. All the purr words seem to share certain features. Most of these expressions are defined by the Oxford Dictionary in a circular way, i.e. either a word derived from the word itself is used in the definition (e.g. the word prosperity means ―the state of being prosperous‖), or, more frequently, the meaning of a purr word is described by employing another purr word or purr words. For example, the word peace denotes ―freedom from or the cessation of war or violence‖ or the expression civil liberties denotes ―the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech‖. Alternatively, the word in question is not defined by other purr words, but such purr words appear among the most common collocates of this word. When looking for the collocations of the word prosperity, one finds out that what is prosperous is usually

209 also peaceful, stable, democratic, free and when looking for the collocations of the word stability, one finds that what is stable is also peaceful and democratic. This leads me to seeing purr words as a special category of vocabulary. The concepts denoted by these purr words are mutually interconnected, but such direct connections do not exist between them and other vocabulary. Purr words can thus be described as existing for their own sake, building on the positive associations they evoke in people. The mutual relation of primary and secondary purr words and the relation of these two with the rest of the vocabulary is demonstrated in the following diagram.

Primary Purr Words Secondary Purr Words

Rest of the English lexicon

4) Biased words and purr words can serve as basic components of euphemisms, hence becoming basic lower-level units of doublespeak. Consequently, euphemisms can be defined as higher-level doublespeak expressions

Euphemisms as a form of doublespeak have been divided into three categories according to the way they are created: 1) widening of meaning (encompassing circumlocution, hyperbole and understatement), 2) semantic shift (encompassing metonymy and synecdoche) and 3) metaphorical transfer.

210

However, the analysis has revealed that a substantial number of euphemisms are created with the help of either a biased word or a purr word. This word is encompassed in the euphemistic expression, disregarding whether the euphemism was created by means of widening of meaning, semantic shift, or metaphorical transfer. A purr word or a biased word makes part of a compound or a phrase which can as a whole be considered as a euphemism. Biased words or purr words can then be perceived as the basic components of the euphemism or, in other words, as basic lower-level units of doublespeak. Consequently, euphemisms can be regarded as higher-level doublespeak expressions. This process is demonstrated in the diagram below:

211

As a result of this process, nine possible types of euphemisms can arise: namely, pure widening of meaning, pure metaphorical transfer, pure semantic shift, widening of meaning based on hidden bias, metaphorical transfer based on hidden bias, semantic shift based on hidden bias, widening of meaning based on a purr word, metaphorical transfer based on a purr word, and semantic shift based on a purr word. This is demonstrated in the following table, together with examples. The basic unit of doublespeak, i.e. a biased word or a purr or snarl word in the examples is underlined.

1. Pure widening of meaning e.g. those who believe in choice, use of military power, lower income groups 2. Widening of meaning based on a purr word e.g. peacemakers, peacekeepers, freedom fighters 3. Widening of meaning based on hidden bias e.g. to be fortunate enough to earn your vote, developing world, tough economic times, fiscally responsible 4. Pure metaphorical transfer e.g. people at the bottom end of the economic ladder, people left behind, those at the top 5. Metaphorical transfer based on a purr word e.g. (to see his father) lose his job 6. Metaphorical transfer based on hidden bias e.g. nation building (missions), a child can walk in and have their heart turned dark, tax relief, axis of evil 7. Pure semantic shift e.g. Wall Street, Main Street, special interests 8. Semantic shift based on a purr word (not found in the corpus) 9. Semantic shift based on hidden bias e.g. to be pro-life

All of these ways of creating euphemisms are used in the presidential debates at least once except for the combination of semantic shift and hidden bias (cf. category 8 above), which has not been found in any of the nine debates analyzed. However, examples of combining semantic shift with two biased words or the combination of widening of meaning with both a purr word and a biased word appeared in the debates, e.g. destruction of life or to destroy life (meaning abortion) and places in the world that harm our national security (meaning enemies).

***

212

In addition to these theoretical findings, the outcome of the thesis is the verification of the validity of the initial three hypotheses. The first two hypotheses are related to each other and deal with the quantity of lexical doublespeak used by presidential candidates in the debates:

Hypothesis 1: The use of doublespeak has become more widespread and elaborate after September 11, 2001

Hypothesis 2: Republican candidates use doublespeak more than Democratic candidates and their doublespeak is more sophisticated

As can be seen in the following graph, both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 have been confirmed in the analysis. In all three periods, Republican candidates used lexical doublespeak more frequently than Democratic candidates. In the year 2000, the difference was relatively small; in the following two periods, however, the gap between the two parties became bigger. The fact that there is a more substantial difference in the frequency of the use of lexical doublespeak in 2004 and 2008 can be attributed to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which led to the increased use of doublespeak, in particular of hidden bias, by Republican presidential candidates, George W. Bush and John McCain, in the years 2004 and 2008. It is apparent from the graph that lexical doublespeak was used the least by the Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2008.

346

262 277 219 207

132 Republican Candidates

Democratic Candidates

2000 2004 2008

Graph 11: Lexical Doublespeak

213

Although the overall result is indisputable, it is important to stress that there are some kinds of lexical doublespeak which were used predominantly by Democratic presidential candidates. Secondary purr words were used most frequently by the Democratic candidate Al Gore in 2000. That is also the case of family relations words, which were used most often by Al Gore in 2000, followed by the 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry. As far as snarl words are concerned, they were most often employed by the Republican candidate John McCain in 2008. However, in the years 2000 and 2004, their use was more common for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates. This is in agreement with and supports the above-mentioned observation that the increase in the use of lexical doublespeak can be partly attributed to the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, as those forms of doublespeak that were used predominantly by Democrats are not related to the war issues, but rather to social and family issues. The two above-stated hypotheses also include the presumption that Republican doublespeak is more sophisticated and that doublespeak has become more elaborate after September 11. If we consider euphemisms as a more elaborate and sophisticated form of doublespeak, contrasted with the basic units of doublespeak (i.e. purr/snarl words and hidden bias), we come to the conclusion that this presumption has been confirmed only partially. Euphemisms were used by Republican candidates more than by Democratic candidates in all three periods, and we can thus conclude that the Republican use of sophisticated doublespeak is more frequent than Democratic. However, the analysis has not proven that euphemisms are used more often after September 11. The analysis has shown the opposite, i.e. that euphemisms were used most frequently in 2000, their use gradually decreasing in the following two periods. It can thus be concluded that the elaboration of doublespeak has decreased slightly after September 11, rather than increased, which is in contradiction with what was initially presumed in the hypothesis. The last hypothesis was related to the purpose of the use of doublespeak and to the aims politicians want to achieve by using doublespeak expressions:

Hypothesis 3: Politicians use doublespeak in order to intensify their own good, downplay their own bad, intensify their opponents‘ bad, or downplay their opponents‘ good

214

Thirteen topics in which hidden bias can be traced have been identified. These topics are 1) success in Iraq, 2) staying or withdrawing from Iraq, 3) enemies, 4) foreign policy, 5) direction of politics, 6) patriotism, 7) co-workers and candidate‘s background, 8) security, 9) social, health and education policy, 10) American economy, 11) resistance to interest groups, 12) environment, and 13) abortion. These thirteen topics can be divided into two groups, those related to the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and those not related to this conflict. George W. Bush‘s and John McCain‘s purpose of using biased expressions related to this conflict is to justify the conflict and to support the point of view that American troops should not withdraw from the two countries. On the other hand, John Kerry‘s and Barack Obama‘s objective is to persuade the public that they would approach the issue in a different way and that this approach would be more successful. The topics that are not related to the war in Iraq can be divided into two groups according to the purpose of the use of hidden bias. The first group includes the topics foreign policy; security; social, health, and education policy; American economy; environment; and abortion. The purpose of using hidden bias in these topic groups is to support the candidates‘ political point of view on those particular issues. As for the topics direction of politics, co-workers and candidates’ background, and resistance to interest groups, the purpose corresponds to the purpose mentioned in the hypothesis, i.e. to intensify one‘s own or his running mate‘s good, to downplay the opponent‘s good or to intensify the opponent‘s bad. The topic patriotism can be considered a special case, as hidden bias is used here in order to intensify the good of America as a country in general and the collective good of Americans as its citizens. As already mentioned, purr words have been divided into two groups – primary purr words (peace, democracy, freedom, liberty, civil liberties, and the American dream) and secondary purr words (security, accountability, prosperity, justice, stability, flexibility, transparency, equality, and fairness). Purr words are used in the presidential debates for two main reasons. In the situations when these words are used vaguely and out of context, not related to any particular deed or action, their purpose is basically to help the candidate look good in the eyes of American voters. As these are values highly appreciated by most of the population, the simple uttering of these words and claiming that this is what you want and what you will fight for arouses approval. And that is why they are called ―purr words‖. They make people ―purr‖ with satisfaction.

215

However, purr words are also used in more concrete ways. They are supposed to support the candidate‘s viewpoints or deeds. George W. Bush, for example, uses words like freedom or justice when justifying American invasion into Iraq. Al Gore puts stress on prosperity, trying to capitalize on the situation in the United States after eight years of previous Democratic administration. These concepts are rightly called ―contested concepts‖ by Lakoff (2006: 70), because by using and repeating these words the candidates seem to contest who will be better in establishing and reestablishing these values in America. As for family relations words, the purpose of their use is in an overwhelming majority of cases intensifying one‘s own good. However, in some of the contexts, the analysis has shown that the candidates also use these words in order to intensify their opponent‘s good (e.g. when candidates praise their opponent‘s family life) or to intensify the opponent‘s bad (e.g. when John Kerry is speaking about kids and sons dying or being maimed in Iraq). Snarl words are mostly used in order to intensify somebody else‘s bad. However, it is not the speaker‘s opponent whose bad is intensified. It is usually some third party, either a country or regime in the third world, or Russia. There seem to be several reasons why the presidential candidates resort to the use of euphemisms. In most of the cases, euphemisms are used in order to support the candidate‘s point of view on the issues being discussed, e.g. abortion or tax cuts. Many of the euphemisms are used to show that the candidate either is or is not in favor of somebody or something (e.g. countries or people). Most of the euphemisms are related to poor or common people and to various kinds of other social issues; in this case, the purpose of the use of the euphemism is to show the candidate‘s compassion for these people, as they constitute the majority of the American electorate. Euphemisms as a form of doublespeak are thus very close to political correctness. It can thus be claimed that the third hypothesis has not been completely confirmed. Although in a substantial number of cases, lexical doublespeak is used for one of the four hypothesized purposes, there are other cases which actually contradict the hypothesis (e.g. family relations words used with the intention to intensify the opponent‘s good) or cases when the doublespeak does not focus on either of the candidates, but rather on some third party (e.g. snarl words). However, the most common purpose of the use of lexical doublespeak is to intensify the good of one‘s own point of view or to intensify the bad of one‘s

216 opponent‘s point of view. It is arguable whether this can be considered as complying with the hypothesis. The candidates themselves certainly do perceive their point of view as the good one and their opponent‘s point of view as the bad one, and consequently they might use the doublespeak with the intention of intensifying their own good (downplaying their own bad) or of intensifying the other‘s bad (downplaying the other‘s good). However, the political opinions of people are subjective and vary from individual to individual. It is thus possible that in such cases the doublespeak expression does not have the effect on people as is intended by the politicians.

217

Summary

The present thesis focuses on the use of doublespeak in televised political debates, namely in the United States presidential debates in the years 2000, 2004, and 2008. Apart from consolidating different approaches towards doublespeak and identifying linguistic, in particular lexical-semantic means of this kind of language, the thesis attempts to find out whether there are any differences between the use of doublespeak by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in those particular election years, and also to try to uncover what effects the use of such language might have on the thought and political opinions of the electorate. Based on the different approaches, doublespeak is divided into three basic classes: lexical doublespeak, stylistic doublespeak and syntactic doublespeak. The analysis then focuses entirely on lexical doublespeak and its three main components, namely hidden bias, purr and snarl words, and euphemism. Out of the three categories of doublespeak, lexical doublespeak is the one which can be considered the most sophisticated and most difficult to identify. Consequently, the effect of this form of doublespeak on the electorate is the strongest and its potential to manipulate people‘s perception of reality and hence influence their political opinions is the highest. The analysis has led to several theoretical findings. First, it has shown that hidden bias can be based on four different factors: 1) positive or negative evaluativeness of the denotative meaning itself, 2) relevant denotative meaning affected by non- relevant denotative meaning, 3) position on one of the extreme ends of the positive – negative scale, and 4) connotations based on collocations. In most of the cases, however, the bias is composed of a combination of two or more of these factors. Secondly, purr and snarl words can be considered as extreme cases of hidden bias, where the connotative meaning overshadows the denotative meaning of the expression. Thirdly, purr words can be divided into three sub-categories: primary purr words, secondary purr words, and family relation words. While primary and secondary purr words denote fairly vague positive values, family relations words can be seen as a specific kind of purr words which express basic relations within families. Fourthly, biased words and purr words can serve as basic components of euphemisms, hence becoming basic lower-level units of doublespeak. Consequently, euphemisms can be defined as higher-level doublespeak expressions. As a result, nine

218 possible types of euphemisms can arise: namely, pure widening of meaning, pure metaphorical transfer, pure semantic shift, widening of meaning based on hidden bias, metaphorical transfer based on hidden bias, semantic shift based on hidden bias, widening of meaning based on a purr word, metaphorical transfer based on a purr word, and semantic shift based on a purr word. The most common type of euphemisms used by American presidential candidates in the years 2000, 2004, and 2008 was widening of meaning, the second was metaphor, and the third was semantic shift. Widening of meaning itself and when supported by a purr word or by hidden bias constitutes 66% of doublespeak euphemisms of the Republican candidates and 69% of the doublespeak euphemisms of the Democratic candidates. Pure widening of meaning accounts for 41% of the euphemisms used by Republicans and 39% euphemisms used by Democrats. The analysis has thus shown that there are not any major differences in the creation of euphemisms between Republicans and Democrats. However, as for the overall frequency of using doublespeak expressions, Republican candidates used lexical doublespeak more frequently than Democratic candidates in all three analyzed periods.

219

Bibliography

Sources

Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate in Boston,‖ October 3, 2000. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29418. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate in Winston-Salem, North Carolina,‖ October 11, 2000. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29419. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate in St. Louis,‖ October 17, 2000. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29420. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate in Coral Gables, Florida,‖ September 30, 2004. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72770. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate in St. Louis, Missouri,‖ October 8, 2004. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72776. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate in Tempe, Arizona,‖ October 13, 2004. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=63163. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford,‖ September 26, 2008. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78691. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee,‖ October 7, 2008. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=84482. Presidential Candidates Debates: ―Presidential Debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York,‖ October 15, 2008. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=84526. 220

References

Allan, Keith (2001) Natural Language Semantics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Alston, William P. (2000) Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Aunk, Rudy (2002) Doublespeak in Black and White. Lincoln: iUniverse, Inc. Beard, Adrian (2000) The Language of Politics. London: Routledge. Bolinger, Dwight (1980) Language, the Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today. 2. ed. reprinted. New York: Longman. Bolinger, Dwight and Donald A. Sears (1981) Aspects of Language. 3d ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Bramer, George R. (1989) ―Doublespeak and Ethics‖ in Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Ed. by William Lutz. National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana. 65 – 74. Brent, Harry (1989) ― ‗Bullets Hurt, Corpses Stink‘: George Orwell and the Language of Warfare‖ in Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Ed. by William Lutz. National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana. 99 – 110. Confucius, Faxian and Mencius (2003) Chinese Literature Comprising the Analects of Confucius, the Sayings of Mencius, the Shi-King, the Travels of Fâ-Hien, and the Sorrows of Han [online]. Available from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10056 [November 13, 2012] Cumming, Susanna (2003) ―Euphemism and Dysphemism‖ in Language & Power [online]. Available from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/cumming/ling50/euphemism%2Bdysphe mism.htm [December 18, 2012] Cruse, D. A. (1986) Lexical Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Čermák, František (2010) Lexikon a sémantika. Praha: NLN, Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Čmejrková, Světla (2003) ―Mediální rozhovor jako žánr veřejného projevu‖ in , politika. Ed. by Světla Čmejrkovvá and Jana Hoffmannová. Praha: Academia. Daneš, František (1994) ―Involvement with Language and in Language‖ in Journal of Pragmatics. Volulme 22. Issues 3-4. 251-264. [online] Available from

221

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216694901112 [March 16, 2013] D‘Angelo, Frank J. (1989) ―Fiddle-Faddle, Flapdoodle, and Balderdash: Some Thoughts about Jargon.‖ in Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Ed. by William Lutz. National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana. 121 – 131. Danner, Mark (2007) ―Words in a Time of War: On Rhetoric, Truth, and Power‖ in What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. Ed. by András Szántó. 1st ed. New York: PublicAffairs. Davies, Mark (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present [online]. Available from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Dietrich, Daniel (1976) Teaching about Doublespeak. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. Dorf, Michael C. (2000) Gore's Affirmative Action versus Bush's Affirmative Access: Why Color-Blindness Still Won't Work. FindLaw [online]. Available from http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20001101.html [July 26, 2012] Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman. Firbas, Jan (1992) Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geis, Michael L. (1987) The Language of Politics. 2. ed., reprinted. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gibson, Walker and William Lutz (1991) Doublespeak: A Brief History, Definition, and Bibliography, with a List of Award Winners, 1974 – 1990. Urbana: National Council of English Teachers. Gumperz, John Joseph and Stephen C. Levinson (1996) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Hahn, Dan F. (1989) ―Political Language: The Art of Saying Nothing‖ in Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Ed. by William Lutz. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. 111 – 120. Haiman, John (1980) ―The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation‖ in Language, 56. 515-540. Haiman, John (1983) ―Iconic and Economic Motivation‖ in Language 59. 781-819. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1990) Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

222

Hayakawa, Samuel I. (1949) Language in Thought and Action. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Hodge, Bob and Roger Fowler (1979) ―Orwellian Linguistics‖ in Language and Control. Ed. by Roger Fowler. Boston: Routledge. 6-25. Hodge, Bob and Gunther R. Kress (1993) Language as Ideology: The Use and Abuse of Language Today. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Interview Frank Luntz (2004) Frontline [online]. Available from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.htm l [November 21, 2012] Kehl, D.G. (1982) ―The Doublespeak of Academia‖ in Speaking of Words: A Language Reader. Ed. by James MacKillop and Donna Woolfolk Cross. New York: CBS College Publishing. Kehl, D.G. (1988) ―Doublespeak: Its Meaning and Its Menace‖ in Quarterly Review of Doublespeak 14, no. 2. 1 – 2. Kepel, Gilles (2004) The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George (2002) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George (2004) ―Lakoff's First Law‖ in Edge The World Question Center [online]. Available from http://www.edge.org/q2004/page4.html#lakoff [January 27, 2013] Lakoff, George (2005) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know your Values and Frame the Debate : The Essential Guide for Progressives. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub. Co. Lakoff, George (2007) ―What Orwell Didn't Know About the Brain, the Mind, and Language‖ in What Orwell Didn't know: propaganda and the new face of American politics. Ed. by András Szántó. New York: PublicAffairs. Lakoff, George and Elisabeth Wehling (2012) The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. New York: Free Press.

223

Lemann, Nicholas (2007) ―The Limits of Language‖ in What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. Ed. by András Szántó. New York: PublicAffairs. 9-15. Leech, Geoffrey (1990) Semantics: The Study of Meaning. 2. ed., reprinted. London: Penguin Books. Lipka, Leonhard (1990) An Outline of English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics, and Word Formation : Niemeyer. Luntz, Frank I. (2007) Words that Work: It's not what you Say, it's what People Hear. New York: Hyperion. Lutz, William (1989a) Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. Lutz, William (1989b) ―Notes toward a Definition of Doublespeak‖ in Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Ed. by William Lutz. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. 1 – 10. Lutz, William (1990) Doublespeak: From "Revenue Enhancement" to "Terminal Living": How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive you. New York: HarperPerennial. Lutz, William (1996) The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone’s Saying Anymore. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Lutz, William (1999) Doublespeak Defined: Cut through the Bull**** and Get to the Point. New York: HarperResource. Lyons, John (1977) Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Martin, James R. and Peter R. White (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Massing, Michael (2007) ―Our Own Thought Police‖ in What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. Ed. by András Szántó. New York: PublicAffairs. Mathesius, Vilém (1975) A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. Prague: Academia. Mey, Jacob (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Minow, Newton N. and Craig L. Lamay (2008) Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Molhova, Jana (1976) Outlines of English Lexicology. Sofia: Naouka i Izkoustvo.

224

Naes, Arne, Jens A. Christophersen and Kjell Kvalø (1956) Democracy, Ideology and Objectivity: Studies in the Semantics and Cognitive Analysis of Ideological Controversy. Oslo: University Press. 1956. Noble, Vernon (1982) Speak Softly: Euphemisms and Such. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Orwell, George (2003) ―Looking Back on the Spanish War‖ in The Complete Works of George Orwell [online]. Available from http://www.george- orwell.org/Looking_Back_On_The_Spanish_War/0.html [November 20, 2012]. Orwell, George (1989) Nineteen eighty-four. London: Penguin. Orwell, George (2007) ―Politics and the English Language‖ in What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. Ed. by András Szántó. New York: PublicAffairs. 205 – 222. Osgood, Charles Egerton, George John Suci and Percy Hyman Tannenbaum (1975) The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Oxford Collocation Dictionary Online for Advanced English Learners (2011) Available from http://www.ozdic.com/. Oxford Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms (2007) 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Dictionaries Online (2013) Oxford University Press. Available from http://oxforddictionaries.com/ Palmer, Frank R. (1981) Semantics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Penelope, Julia (1989) ―Make Money, Not Sense: Keep Academia Green‖ in Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four. Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Ed. by William Lutz. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. Pinker, Steven (2007) The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York: Viking. Poole, Steven (2006) Unspeak. How Words Become Weapons, How Weapons Become Message, and How that Message Becomes Reality. New York: Grove Press. Pütz, Martin and Marjolijn H. Verspoor (2000) Explorations in Linguistic Relativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Rank, Hugh (1974) Language and Public Policy. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

225

Rank, Hugh (1976) ―Teaching about Public Persuasion: Rationale and a Schema‖ in Teaching about Doublespeak. Ed. by Daniel Dieterich. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. 3 – 19. Riegel, Jeffrey (2012) ―Confucius‖ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition) [online]. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/confucius/ [October 16, 2012] Safire, William (2006) ―The Little Guy‖ in The New York Times [online]. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/magazine/30wwln_safire.html?_r=3& [July 28, 2012] Sapir, Edward (1970) ―The Status of Linguistics as a Science‖ in Edward Sapir: Culture, Language and Personality. Ed. by David G. Mandelbaum. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Scholz, Barbara C., Francis Jeffry Pelletier and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2011) ―Philosophy of Linguistics‖ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition [online]. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/linguistics/ [October 26, 2012] Sledd, James H. (1972) ―Doublespeak: Dialectology in the Service of Big Brother‖ in College English 33. 439-456. Stubbs, Michael (1996) Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Swoyer, Chris (2010) ―Relativism‖ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition) [online]. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Avalilable from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/relativism/ [December 18, 2012] (2007) What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. New York: PublicAffairs. Urban Dictionary (1999-2013) [online] Available from http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Urbanová, Ludmila (2008) Stylistika anglického jazyka. Brno: Společnost pro odbornou literaturu – Barrister & Principal. ―US expands ‗axis of evil‘‖ (2002) in BBC News [online] Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1971852.stm [January 23, 2013]

226

Vachek, Josef (1976) Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Wasserman, Paul and Don Hausrath (2006) Weasel Words: the Dictionary of American Doublespeak. Sterling, Va.: Capital Books. Webb, Nick (2006) The Dictionary of (Bull.Shit): a Shamelessly Opinionated Guide to All that is Absurd, Misleading and Insincere. Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks. Westen, Drew (2007) ―The New Frontier: The Instruments of Emotion‖ in What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. Ed. by András Szántó. New York: PublicAffairs. Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1956) Language, Thought and Reality. Ed. by J. B. Carroll. New York: Wiley. Williams, Joseph M. (1957) Origins of the English Language. New York: Free Press. Wilson, John a Gunther R. Kress (1990) Politically Speaking: the Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: B. Blackwell. Winter, Metta L. (1982) ―Doublespeak – Care in Language Use, a Defense against Deception‖ in The Christian Science Monitor. 22 November.

227