Political linguistics is the study of the relations between language and politics. It argues that language gives origin to the state. The reason is that when humans perform linguistic communication, they use media. Media extend the distance of linguistic communication. Humans interact with one another on a large scale. They form a large community. This leads to the dissolution of the tribes and the formation of the state. Language plays a role in the growth of the state in every aspect. Language plays a role in the formation of the state, in the governance of the state and in the building of the spirit of the state. That is, language is used as a means to form a state and is enacted in various ways that help achieve political objectives. Language allows for people in a very large number to communicate with each other on a large scale to the effect that a state is formed. As language forms the basis of communication, politics is thus affected by language. Political linguistics is a performance. In order for the public to have positive sentiments towards a party, a politician will carefully craft their manifesto in order to convince the reader of their credibility. These political parties will then be part of a system of communication between the state and the governed, which helps them influence opinions and also their power. Hence, political linguistics is a tool of persuasion in politics, especially in speeches and campaigns. When studying political linguistics, one can pay attention to the effects of slogans, mass media, debates and propaganda to persuade the values and identities of individuals. There are strong relationships between political linguistics, social linguistics, and media linguistics. Political linguistics is distinct from linguistic politics or language politics, which refer to the politics of language itself. Language is attached to national, cultural and ethnic identity, hence, the way language is used and disseminated is political and can be used for political gain.
Strategies within Political Discourse
Language is inseparable from the political domain. It can be used in strategies to influence public thought. Political discourse is about "the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidents and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and international levels". When referring to propaganda, Hitler stated that all propaganda needed to be popular, but its intellectual content must be kept to a minimum. Instead, it should appeal to their emotions, with its effectiveness being based on the extent to which the masses’ emotions are exploited. In this manner, according to Social Identity Theory, language can be used to divide a community by creating an in-group and an out-group. Additionally, it can be used to exaggerate the seriousness of a situation or ostracise a certain demographic .
Politics embedded in language Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey. Hence, people will strategically produce utterances in ways they expect their audience to interpret the meaning they are trying to convey. When using language, even if in a thought, any individual will seek an audience and a response from them is expected. Erving Goffman believes when "a person volunteers a statement or message, however trivial or common-place, he commits himself and those he addresses, and in a sense places everyone present in jeopardy. By saying something, the speaker opens himself up to the possibility that the intended recipients will affront him by not listening or will think him forward, foolish, or offensive in what he has said." When an utterance is made or a statement is written, a response is solicited from the audience (whether intended or not), hence, according to Goffman's Face Theory, the speaker will choose his words wisely to gain the most favourable response. "One can see the deferential use of the plural as both a negative and a positive face strategy. Addressing someone as, in effect, ‘you and yours', deflects the force of the speech act from the individual spoken to, making it less direct and less threatening. At the same time, it increases the ‘size’ of the addressee, as it were, implying that this person matters too much to be treated as a mere singular."
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
