Euphemism is a discursive strategy that politicians use to approach unsettling, embarrassing, or distasteful, i.e. taboo, topics without appearing inconsiderate to people’s concerns. Following a critical discourse-analytic approach to political language, this paper discusses the communicative functions that euphemism performs in the discourse of local and state politicians from New Jersey (USA) in a sample of language data excerpted from The Star-Ledger, the state’s largest newspaper. The analysis reveals that (metaphorical and non-metaphorical) euphemism constitutes a major strategy of self-protection and positive self-presentation for legislators which allows them – mostly by understatement, periphrasis, and metaphor – first, to refer to socially disadvantaged groups or address delicate subjects without sounding insensitive; second, to criticize their political opponents in a socially acceptable way; and third, to purposely conceal from the public unsettling or controversial topics.
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2015. “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig, 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Burridge, Kate. 2012. “Euphemism and Language Change. The Sixth and Seven Ages”. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology 71: 65–92.
Cameron, Deborah. 2012. Verbal Hygiene. London and New York: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cox, Jeremy L.2012. “Politics in Motion: Barack Obama’s Use of Movement Metaphors”. American Communication Journal 14 (2): 1–13.
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer. 2014. “Euphemism and Political Discourse in the British Regional Press”. Brno Studies in English 40 (1): 5–26.
Degani, Marta. 2015. Framing the Rhetoric of a Leader: An Analysis of Obama’s Election Campaign Speeches. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grady, Joseph E.1997. “Theories are Buildings Revisited”. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4): 267–290.
Halmari, Helena. 2011. “Political Correctness, Euphemism and Language Change. The Case of ‘People First’”. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 828–840.
Kahn, Paul. 1997. The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Krzyżanowski, Michal, and Bernard Forchtner. 2016. “Theories and Concepts in Critical Discourse Studies: Facing Challenges, Moving beyond Foundations”. Discourse and Society 7 (3): 253–261.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, William. 1987. “Doublespeak at Large”. English Today 121: 21–24.
Musolff, Andreas. 2014. “The Metaphor of the ‘Body Politic’ across Languages and Cultures”. In Cognitive Explorations into Metaphor and Metonymy, ed. by Frank Polzenhagen, Zoltán Kövecses, Stefanie Vogelbacher, and Sonjia Kleinke, 85–99. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political Metaphor Analysis. Discourse and Scenarios. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
Partington, Alan. 2003. The Linguistics of Political Argument. The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London and New York: Routledge.
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2015. “The Discourse-historical Approach (DHA)”. In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London: SAGE.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J.2000. “The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy”. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, ed. by Antonio Barcelona, 109–132. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Shin, Yongjun. 2016. “Connecting Political Communication with Urban Politics: A Bourdieusian Framework”. International Journal of Communication 101: 508–529.
Van Dijk, Teun A.1997. “What is Political Discourse Analysis?” In Political Linguistics, ed. by Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 11–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Dijk, Teun A.2006. “Politics, Ideology, and Discourse”. In Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ruth Wodak, 728–740. London: Elsevier.
Wilson, John. 2001. “Political Discourse”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 398–416. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2015. “Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology”. In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–22. London: SAGE.
Yu, Ning. 2008. “Metaphor from Body and Culture”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 247–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zarefsky, David (ed). 2014. Political Argumentation in the United States. Historical and Contemporary Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (10)
Cited by ten other publications
Devi, Maibam Debina & Navanath Saharia
2024. Identification of domain-specific euphemistic tweets using clustering. International Journal of Information Technology 16:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
2022. Evaluating assertions by a Wells Fargo CEO of a ‘return to ethical conduct’. Leadership 18:3 ► pp. 400 ff.
Kasztenna, Katarzyna (Kasia)
2022. Framing the pandemic in the political discourse of Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump. Working papers in Applied Linguistics and Linguistics at York 2 ► pp. 29 ff.
2021. The Nation as a Body or Person in Present-Day British Political Discourse. In National Conceptualisations of the Body Politic [Cultural Linguistics, ], ► pp. 35 ff.
2019. Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space: The case of blue-on-blue. Lingua 225 ► pp. 50 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.