Political discourse

Political discourse and ideology

General characteristics
Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey
broad historical meanings. It is language identified by the social
conditions of its use, by who is using it and under what conditions.
Language can never be 'neutral' because it bridges our personal and social
worlds."(Frances Henry and Carol Tator, Discourses of Domination. Univ.
of Toronto Press, 2002)

What is important for the definition of political discourse, is that its

structures are relevant for political structures and processes.
The "Dictionary of political terminology" provides the following
definition: "Discourse is a type of verbal communication oriented on
discussion and justification of any aspect of actions, thoughts and
utterances of its members. "
The most important characteristics of discourse in its modern sense are:
discourse is a complex communicative phenomenon that involves and
social context that gives an idea about participants of a communication
(and their characteristics ) and the processes of production and perception
of a message [8:312 ];
discourse reflects the subjective psychology of person, and therefore it
can not be alienated from the speaker [1:3-42];
essentially discourse is a cognitive phenomenon, something that has to do
with transfer of knowledge, creation of new knowledge [10:7-25];
discourse is a " linked text together with extralinguistic , pragmatic and
other factors, speech, considered as a purposeful social action as a
component involved in the interaction between people and their
mechanisms of consciousness ( cognitive processes) "[5:136-137].
D. Hreyber in his work identifies such features of political discourse:
information dissemination is equally important unit of political discourse
towards people;
agenda setting. The point of this function is to control the spread of
information;

 projection into the future and the past that lies in predicting future policy,
analyzing the positive and negative experiences of the past [6: 35].
The study of political discourse, like that of other areas of discourse
analysis, covers a broad range of subject matter, and draws on a wide
range of analytic methods. Perhaps more than with other areas of
discourse, however, one needs at the outset to consider the reflexive and
potentially ambiguous nature of the term political discourse.
The concept of discourse is used to describe its particular type, such as
" political discourse", "scientific discourse". In this case, linguists
consider the discourse as a genre [15, 89-91]. Genre stylistic features of
discourse allow the addressee to refer this or that text to to any sphere of
communication based on specific concepts of norms and rules of
communication, the types of communicative behavior, language
implementation of speech genre [15, 91-97].
Thus, the political discourse is a discourse generated by politicians.
Limiting political discourse by professional boundaries, political
activity, we can note that the political discourse is also the form of
institutional discourse. It means that political discourse is a discourse
generated in such circumstances, as government meeting, Session of
Parliament, the party congress. The sender has to make statements as a
politician in the institutional setting. Thus, discourse is political when it
accompanies political act in a political environment.
Political discourse is a use of language in the social and political sphere
of communication and, more broadly, in the public sphere of
communication. Due to the theme and place in the system of political
communication we can define wether a text belongs to the category of
political. Researchers of political discourse distinguish certain criteria that
characterize this area of communication. The main criteria are the content,
purpose and function of political communication [17, 46]. Political
discourse is viewed as a "secondary language subsystem, which has some
functions, unique thesaurus and communicative effect" [5, 51]. Many
linguists say that the main function of political discourse is a function of
persuasion. P. Parshyn affirms that any text affects the consciousness of
the addressee at the semiotic level. But political text, lingual effect is the
main goal of communication [11,203], which is focused on lingual

means choice. Therefore, an important feature of political discourse is that

the politicians use metaphor, ellipsis, nominalization and other techniques
to influence the consciousness of society. Intentions and plans of political
discourse sender are always sufficiently defined. As P. Parshyn noted,
Parshin, political discourse is a kind of ideological discourse [9, 200, see.
also 3, 6-8], its main purpose is to evaluate a social phenomenon from the
standpoint of existing ideological guidelines.
Another feature of political discourse is its "focus on the future
context" [2, 22]. According to G. Pocheptsova, future contexts are
advantageous because they are hard to deny, and can not be verified at this
time [11, 52]. These contexts are aimed at future success. It is beneficial
to politicians, because when it is time to check the result, one of the
objects can disappear - it may be a politician or a recipient who is not
interested in these ideas anymore. Political discourse proclaims its ideas
as the best and others as lies.
There are two main approaches to the concept of political discourse.
according to
the first political discourse is considered as institutional, forming a set
of all
speech acts that are used in political discussions, as well as rules of
public policy,
based on specific traditions and proven experience. The peculiarity of
addresser-addressee configuration of political discourse is that the
addressee is society.
According to the second approach institutionality qualifies as one of
systemcreating features of political discourse.
Political discourse has special features, and one of them is
transformations. Similar words and phrases may come to be reinterpreted
within different ideological frameworks. Linked directly to this process is
the concept of representation. Representation refers to the issue of how
language is employed in different ways to represent what we can know,
believe, and perhaps think. There are basically two views of
representation: the universalist and the relativist (Montgomery 1992). The
universalist view assumes that we understand our world in relation to a set
of universal conceptual primes. Language, in this view, simply reflects

these universal possibilities. Language is the vehicle for expressing our

system of thought, with this system being independent of the language
itself. The relativist position sees language and thought as inextricably
intertwined. Our understanding of the world within a relativist perspective
is affected by available linguistic resources. The consequences here,
within a political context, seem obvious enough. to have others believe
you, do what you want them to do, and generally view the world in the
way most favorable for your goals, you need to manipulate, or, at the very
least, pay attention to the linguistic limits of forms of representation.
The problem of truth and falsity in political discourse is the most
discussed by linguists, journalists and politicians. The main factor of false
information in political discourse is the struggle for power. Lie in the
political discourse is a specific kind of lie as it not only misleads but also
helps to manipulate people. [6:108]
Depending on causes and motives E. Sheigal distinguishes such types
of lies in political discourse:
Lies for political benefit (hushing up undesirable facts or their complete
distirtion);
defamatory lies as a way to discredit political opponents;
the paranoid type of lie, a kind of fixed idea (Masonic conspiracy, Western
control of Russia)
In political communication honesty concedes political benefit. The
graduation message credibility can be represented as a scale on one side
we will have an absolute truth and on the other an outright lie. There is an
evasion from truth between these two points. Exactly this half-lie is
interesting for the study as it is an instrument for manipulation and
misinformation in political discourse [6:115]
Language and Politics
Few areas in the social sciences are as closely related as those of the
study of politics, ideology, and discourse. Politics is one of the social
domains whose practices are virtually exclusively discursive; political

cognition is by definition ideologically based; and political ideologies are

largely reproduced by discourse.
Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, questionbegging and sheer cloudy vagueness. The inflated style itself is a kind of
euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow,
blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of
clear language is insincerity. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping
out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass
of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general
atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.
There are many works in which it is stated that language can affect
politics and it actually does. For example, M.Edelman argues that
"political language is political reality.
The most meaningful formulations on the relationship of language and
policy can be include the following [12:7-86]:
if political is expressed only orally, then the adequate understanding of the
political speech is indispensable for an adequate study of politics" (D. Ili,
1981);
"Discourse of any type ... is the battlefield (a site of struggle). This is a
dynamic language and, above all, semantic space, in which social values
are manufactured and tested. This is most apparent on the political
discourse, as the practice of political activity and political speech is
primarily concerned with power " (J. Seydel, 1985);
"The question of the importance of speech is political by definition, since
speech makes one a political creature Among all forms of activity
necessary for human society and represented in it, only two can be
referred to political and what Aristotel called bios politicos (the action praxis and the speech lexis), from which the whole industry of human
affairs grows (F.R.Dalmeyr, 1984);
"Language is the most powerful weapon a person. The armed forces are
able to keep people in subordination for years, even generations.
However, only through language one can manipulate the human mind
and persuade people to work towards their own oppression. Similarly,
language understanding is the beginning of political independence "
(D.Hrin, 1987);
"Politics is essentially a speech activity in which language is used for

informing others about political problems and to persuade in the need to

participate in activities related to the problem "(M.L.Hays, 1987).
Discourses make ideologies observable in the sense that it is only in
discourse that they may be explicitly expressed and formulated. Other
political practices only implicitly show or experience ideologies, for
instance in practices of discrimination
on the basis of sexist, racist, or political ideologies. It is in discourse
that we need to explicitly explain that such discrimination occurs
because she is a woman, because he is black, or because they are
socialists. The relations between discourse and political ideologies are
usually studied in terms of the structures of
political discourse, such as the use of biased lexical items, syntactic
structures such as actives and passives, pronouns such as us and them,
metaphors, arguments, implications, and many other properties of
discourse. It should be emphasized, however, that discourse should be
conceptualized also in terms of its context structures. It is not sufficient to
observe, for instance, that political discourse often features the wellknown political pronoun we. It is crucial to relate such use to such
categories as who is speaking, when, where and with/to whom, that is, to
specific aspects of the political situation. Political discourse, thus, is not
only defined in terms of political discourse structures but also in terms of
political contexts. Thus, acting as a prime minister, party leader, or
demonstrator will typically be perceived by speakers or recipients as a
political relevant context category in political discourse, whereas being a
dentist or a doorkeeper much less so. Similarly, political contexts may be
defined by special settings, featuring locations such as parliamentary
buildings or events such as debates or meetings, as
often controlled by precise timing, as is the case in parliamentary
debates. Moreover, political discourses and their structures will only be
able to have the political functions they have when they are enacting
political acts or processes, such as governing, legislating, or making
opposition, and with very specific political aims in mind, such as
defending or defeating a bill or getting elected.
Political discourse and its properties are controlled by one or more
underlying ideologies, possibly through more specific (but still general)
social attitudes, on the one hand, and more personal mental models of

concrete events, and finally by context models of the communicative

situation, on the other hand.
Context models control all levels of style of political discourse, such as
lexical choice, pronouns, syntactic structure, and other grammatical
choices that depend on how situations are defined. Thus, lexical and
syntactic style in a parliamentary debate will be much more formal than
an informal political meeting of party members or a propaganda leaflet.
Context models control the overall format or
schema of political discourse, such as the formal organization, openings
and closings of a debate in parliament, the conversational structure of a
political interview, the overall organization of a party program, or the
layout of a political advertisement in a magazine or on a billboard. There
is a close relationship between discourse, ideology and politics, in the
sense that politics is usually discursive as well as ideological, and
ideologies are largely reproduced by text and talk. Traditionally,
ideologies are vaguely and negatively defined in terms of false
consciousness. In a more contemporary, multidisciplinary approach,
ideologies are described in terms of the axiomatic foundation of the social
representations shared by groups. Such general ideologies form the basis
of more specific group attitudes, which in turn may influence group
members individual opinions, constructions or interpretations of specific
events, as well as the social practices and discourses in which group
members engage. In politics, ideologies specifically play a role to define
political systems, organizations, movements, political practices and
political cognition, all enacted or reproduced by political discourse.
Underlying political ideologies are typically expressed in political
discourse by emphasizing Our good things and Their bad things, and by
de-emphasizing Our bad things and their good things. Such a general
strategy may be implemented at all levels of discourse.
Political Discourse Analysis
What is Political Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language
'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical
of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of

grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics

and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and
the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger
chunks of language as they flow together. There is one notion that helps to
break speech or discourse into logic parts. 'Discourse markers' is the term
linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh', 'but', and 'and' that break
our speech up into parts and show the relation between parts. 'Oh'
prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but'
indicates that sentence to follow is in opposition to the one before.
However, these markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary says
they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some
people put 'but' at the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing off
gently. Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers is
important to prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect
every word to have its dictionary meaning every time it's used.
(http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-doconversation deborah tannen)

The very notion of Political Discourse Analysis, is ambiguous. Its most

common interpretation is that it focuses on the analysis of 'political
discourse', although we then still need to determine which discourse is
political and which is not. On the other hand, there is also a more critical
reading of the label, as a political approach to discourse and discourse
analysis.
We have seen that political discourse analysis first of all should be able
to define its proper object of study. In principle political discourse may be
about virtually any topic. However, given the constraints of the political
context we may assume that political discourse also exhibits preferred
topics. First of all, political discourse will be primarily about politics.
Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to
understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. For example,
Charles Fillmore points out that two sentences taken together as a single
discourse can have meanings different from each one taken separately.
Political discourse analysis is both about political discourse, and it is
also a critical enterprise. In the spirit of contemporary approaches in
critical discourse analysis this would mean that critical-political discourse

analysis deals especially with the reproduction of political power, power

abuse or domination through political discourse, including the various
forms of resistance or counter-power against such forms of discursive
dominance. In particular such an analysis deals with the discursive
conditions and consequences of social and political inequality that results
from such domination (Fairclough 1995; van Dijk 1993b).
The analysis of political discourse is relevant for the new crossdiscipline of discourse studies hardly needs any further argument. Indeed,
most scholars doing political discourse analysis are linguists and
discourse analysts.
Political discourse is considered by linguists as an object of
linguocultural study, as secondary language subsystem with functions,
vocabulary and communicative impact. Almost all complex relationship
between man and society are represented in political discourse. Its
analysis has to research texts along extralinguistic factors and shows how
different linguistic groups model cultural values, how social order is
promoted, which elements of language picture of the world remain
outside conscious speaking strategies.
Characteristically, the actually linguistic methods and linguistic data
recently started to be used in the analysis of political discourse. However,
you can distinguish the following main types of linguistic analysis of
discourse:
special attention to paraphrase and synonymy (cf. work M.Peshe, P.Anri,
Zh.Puatu, D.Maldidyera);
emphasis on reasoning and syntax (T.Tryu, Zh.Zaydel);
focus on expressions (compare the work L.Kurdesses, P.Fial, E.Veron,
P.Ashard);
lexical and lexical -metric studies (e.g, Zh.Zhylyamu, R.Munye,
Zh.Kommereta and R.Moro, M.Turnyera, A.Berhunyu);
study of narrative functions (J-P.Feyye);
rhetoric studies (K. Hilomen);
semiotics (R.Bart);
case grammar;
anthropological and sociolinguistic research (compare works of
J.Komaroff, D.Parkin, J-B.Marselezi) [4:43-60].
One of widely represented hypothesis in political discourse analysis is a

hypothesis about the impact of language on political thinking. This can be

attributed to the most interesting variants of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Indeed, the human mind is based the systems of verbal communication,
these systems help to constitute both their conceptual worlds and the
structure of government or social worlds associated with them.
Conceptual and social worlds are contexts of one another. [7:189].
Specific features of communist discourse
There are several characteristic features of communist discourse. One
of them is manipulation. The concept of manipulation in linguistics has
been little studied, and the available information is quite scattered.
According to I. Sentenberg and V.Karasik, lingual manipulations are
understood as a violation of argumentation. T. Nikolaeva understands it as
a means of education in a situation of "communicative sabotage" and
linguistic doublespeak, and K. Bove and U. Arens as of achieving goals
through persuasion [13:9]. Evasion of truth in political discourse is the
result of tendentious representation of reality in the interests of the
speaker, which inevitably associated with a specific operation with
information. Purposeful transformation information is considered as the
most important component of manipulative influence. [14:154-166].
Depending on the nature of the information transformations in the
political discourse we may distinguish between the following types of
manipulation:
Referential manipulation associated with the distortion of the denotate /
referent image in the process of designation of reality. It may be distortion
of the facts (lying, juggling of the facts, exaggeration, creating referential
uncertainty), or focusing manipulation (changing the angle of view and,
therefore, the nature of perception denotate, which causes the recipient to
perceive him/her in a positive light);
Argumentative manipulation associated with the violation of the
postulates of communication. It may be violation of the text logic and
integrity (avoiding an answer, switching of subjects); avoidance to prove
what is said/written; disguise of logical moves, such an objection under

the guise of consent, false arguments;

Factual manipulation in the political discourse is used to discredit
political opponents in order to reduce its political status. There is no doubt
the assertion that the message is distorted information about the actions of
another makes it easy to hang a label guilty on him [16:73].
Thus, the political discourse aims to create a certain perception of the
world, a certain picture of the world for the recipient.
One more characteristic feature is expressing of future tense.
Expression of future events in the language has a special character,
because the future exists only as a possibility, future events from the point
of view of logic, do not have independent status [18: 132]. A number of
future events is open and the very development of the situation in which
these events are possible is branching out, because people can have some
influence on them, hence the statements relating to the future, constitute
an event as a potential [19: 54]. It is considered, that for interpretation of
a statement about the future increases the role of extra-linguistic
information, background knowledge, because such statements "are made
as the speaker talking at time t0 and related to his role with his position in
the communicative situation, with his knowledge at the time t0 and with
his attitude to the world. All of these factors have a much greater impact
on future events ... "[18:55].
The future by its very nature is an area most open to "indoctrination",
for manipulation associated with a particular interpretation of the events
and relationships. As future is not realized it becomes a field for potential
implementation of all human activities, as number of future events exists
only as a pre -scheduled and can be relatively easily changed by a man.
And as a natural modality of future allows a variety of nuances of the
speaker's attitude to future events and his role in them the construction of
"ideologically correct" way of the future is extremely important for the
whole system of totalitarian ideology that should be reflected in certain
features of the Soviet ideological discourse. The future of the Soviet
ideological discourse is planned and pre-determined, that is
"development" of the present. Although the plan itself because of its

prospective nature also includes some degree of speculation, the

traditional genres of totalitarian discourse tend to present future events as
really existing, without the elements of assumption or another modality.
It is obvious that in a totalitarian ideological discourse role of the
author is very peculiar. Total control and regulation excludes any kind of
uncertainty in public statements with respect to both the present and the
future, and because the future is seen as uniquely determined by the will
and actions of a collective subject, it is largely controlled by this subject.
This distinguishes a totalitarian ideological discourse from other varieties
of political discourse. It is not able to such an extent "control" the truth,
the verification of its claims. The specificity of the truth aspect of political
statements has long been noted by researchers. In the language of politics
power of judgment is independent of its truth: political judgment is not
verifiable politically. "It is true to the extent that the voicing it agent or
group can implement it" [20:131]. Thus, the totalitarian concept of the
future is characterized by significant features. A. Karpenko notes that the
attitude towards the future when totalitarianism is a consequence of the
principle of necessity in the new conditions ("if true, then it is
necessary"): Under a totalitarian regime the truth about future makes
this future self-evident and inevitable Proclaimed truth of dogmas about
future in these conditions is sufficient and necessary condition of the
occurrence of the future "[21:73]. On the basis of this representation of
the future in a totalitarian ideology: a number of future events is
predetermined, closed and unchanged, developing by the only possible
line, while the past is open and its events may be easily changed for more
exact compliance with ideological postulates.
Probably, the appearance of such a model of the future was possible
only within a special kind of ideological discourse. Ritual and
mythological nature of the Soviet political language and its functional
similarity to the language of primitive societies was noted by many
researchers ( including [22] ). Uncritical perception by the recipient, belief
in leader, predetermination of the historical development, continuous
playback of specially compiled formulas (compare symbols of faith)
converted political communication into a kind of religious. Mythological

nature of political discourse that permeates all the attributes of a

totalitarian political system, incantatory, magical use of language,
symbolic collective actions all this is aimed at creating strengthening
once and for all a special reality, corresponding to the "postulates of
political religion" [6: 28-29].
Chapter 2
Doublespeak
Approaches
Definition and History

William Lutz givse such definition of doublespeak in his work "The

World of Doublespeak": "Doublespea kis language that prerends 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 that conceals or prevents thought rather than
extending thought,doublespeak limits it." [24].
Lutz provides several defining attributes of doublespeak:
misleads
distorts reality
pretends to communicate
makes the bad seem good
avoids or shifts responsibility
makes the negative appear positive
creates a false verbal map of the world
limits, conceals, corrupts, and prevents thought
makes the unpleasant appear attractive or tolerable
creates incongruity between reality and what is said or not said
As these attributes indicate, doublespeak can be seen as analogous to
doublethink and Newspeak, concepts created by George Orwell in 1984.
Using doublethink, a person could hold two opposing ideas in his or her
mind at the same time, fully believing in both ideas. "Newspeak" was the
official language used to express the ideas of doublethink.

Language is the basis of all human communication. In fact, it may not

be too farfetched to say that language forms the basis of all human
actions. We use language to think, to make decisions, to express our
thoughts and feelings on issues. Then, we act as a result of processing
information, which we can only do by using language. So, the language
we hear and use in our everyday lives influences us and helps shape our
opinions to a greater degree than we probably realize. If the language we
hear and read is corrupt and misleading, it will corrupt and mislead our
thought processes. Not only does language affect how we think and act, it
also affects our ability to communicate with other people. To discuss
issues intelligently, we must use the language that we all agree on. If some
people or groups use their own language of doublespeak that hides the
truth and misleads the receivers of the message, then open, honest
discussion cannot take place. In other words, we cannot truly relate with
others. As Lutz notes, ". . . it is only through clear language that we have
any hope of defining, debating, and deciding the issues of public policy
that confront us."
George Orwell Doublethink
Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two
mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.
[26].
According to the novel, doublethink is:
To know and not to know,
to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully
constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out,
knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use
logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to
believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the
guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then
to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and
then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process
to the process itself that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act
of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."[27]
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them... 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 as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of
objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one
denies all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word
doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word
one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of
doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie
always one leap ahead of the truth."[27]
Newspeak is the method for controlling thought through language;
doublethink is the method of directly controlling thought.
Earlier in the book, doublethink is explained as being able to control
your memories, to be able to manually forget something, then to forget
about forgetting.
Newspeak incorporates doublethink, as it contains many words that
create assumed associations between contradictory meanings, especially
true of fundamentally important words such as good and evil, right and
wrong, truth and falsehood, and justice and injustice.
Orwell's "doublethink" is also credited with having inspired the
commonly used term "doublespeak", which itself does not appear in the
book. Comparisons have been made between doublespeak and Orwell's
descriptions on political speech from his essays Politics and the English
Language, in which "unscrupulous politicians, advertisers, religionists,
and other doublespeakers of whatever stripe continue to abuse language
for manipulative purposes".[28]
Doublespeak by William Lutz
William Lutz is professor of English at Rutgers University. Lutz points
out that his mission is not to eradicate double-speak, but to eliminate
double-speak from the discourse of important issues where it is most
dangerous. He states that double-speak is most prevalent in government,
followed closely by the advertising industry.
Lutz argues that political language is the language of public policy and
power and it is full of doublespeak. The corruption of the language of
power and public policy can lead to the corruption of political system and
sense of national purpose. Doublespeak, he says, is a language that attacks
the very purpose of language, communication between people.

Doubts About Doublespeak by William Lutz is one more very

interesting piece on this topic. He gives a very clear picture of what
Doublespeak is and how it is used in our society every day. Lutz
purpose is to promote his speech to a mass audience and try to inform as
many citizens as possible about the deceptive qualities that doublespeak
contains. With his great examples and clear explanations he gets his point
across to his primary and secondary audience who read his work.
Lutz says "language isn't the invention of human beings to lie, deceive,
mislead, and manipulate" (Lutz) and the "purpose of language is to
communicate the truth and to facilitate social groups getting together"
(Lutz) he states that it is important to highlight doublespeak to the public.
Lutz proves to his readers that doublespeak is deceiving and that everyone
uses it to make things sound different than what they really are, for
example using phrases like ethnic cleansing instead of the defenseless
villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitation driven out into the
countryside (Lutz) or passed away, instead of killed or dead. Even
though Lutz does not consider or address opposite views on this topic, has
good evidence and knowledge of the subject of doublespeak. He gives
many different examples of many diverse situations that we all have
encountered or heard. Lutz gives a great example when he uses member
of the vertical transportation corps, instead of elevator operators.
Lutz styles his peace on Doubts About Doublespeak very interestingly,
by making a very clear picture of what Doublespeak is and how it is
used in our society every day. Even though, Lutz uses more of his
knowledge on this situation rather than any other major sources when he
writes the article.
Types of Doublespeak
Methods of Doublespeak
The first printed textbook on doublespeak can be considered work of
French philosopher Schopenhauer, who described 32 deceptive practices
by which one can achieve victory in the public debate, in a meeting or in
court. These techniques are based on subtle violations of logic or
psychological effects such as pathos, intimidation of opponents, appealing
to authorities, etc. In the magazine "Raduga ( 9 of 1987) Hulot
Vooglaid work "Ethics of Reign and Management" was published, which
described 66 doublespeak methods.

There are 12 techniques of literary polemics:

1. Despicere (look down - lat.) The disputant has to give the enemy feel of
his intellectual and moral superiority.
2. Termini (the terminology - lat.) Using a special polemic turns.
3. Caput canis (here: to attribute bad qualities - lat.) Consists of art to use
only those expressions that can create only negative opinion about
opponent.
4. Non habet (here: note the lack of - Lat.).Here you state the lack of ability
that opponent really has.
5. Negare (here: deny - lat.) It consists in a simple denial of all treats typical
ti you.
6. Imago (here: the substitution of - Lat.). The reader is given some
imaginary "doll-enemy", having nothing to do with the real one, and thet
it is simply destroyed.
7. Pugna (beating - lat.) Is based on the fact that the concept of an enemy, or
enemy, is assigned a false name, and then the whole debate is being
waged against this arbitrarily chosen term.
8. Ulises (Ulysses (Odysseus) - a symbol of cunning - lat.). The main thing
in it is to avoid a diret answer.
9. Testimonia (evidence - lat.) Is based on the fact that it is sometimes
convenient to use a reference to the authority
10.Quousque is similar to the previous one and differs only in the absence of
direct reference to the authority. Just say, "It has long been rejected," or
"thing of the past".
11.Impossibile (here: not allowed - Lat.) - Does not allow the enemy to be
right in any question or to recognize it.
12.Jubilare (triumph - lat.) - One of the most important techniques, and
consists in the fact that the battlefield is always necessary to leave like
winner.
The most complete problem of modern doublespeak is described in the
work written by doctor of physical and mathematical sciences
B.Katsenelenbauma "Demagogy: the experience of classification," in
which the author describes the different ways of misinformation by means
of doublespeak.
In general each scientist or writer may describe his own etods of
doublespeak, but still all of them are very similar.