Words as weapons for mass persuasion: dysphemism in Churchill's wartime speeches

Abstract

Politicians and orators employ words as weapons in order to exert ideological control and make an audience believe something in an ostensive way. In this regard, taking critical-political discourse analysis and appraisal theory as theoretical frameworks, it is the purpose of this paper to shed some light on the dysphemistic words and expressions identified in some of the memorable wartime speeches over a crucial two-year period for the outcome of the Second World War (1940)(1941) by one of the most outstanding British politicians and statesmen, Winston Churchill. As metaphors are pervasive in political discourse and vital to the language of leadership, special attention is given to the analysis of dysphemistic figurative language within Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory and Charteris-Black's critical metaphor analysis. The results obtained support the idea that Churchill's skillful use of dysphemism is closely connected with his overall political goals of instilling courage and inspiring confidence in his fellow countrymen in such difficult times for Britain as those of a war against the powerful Nazi Germany.

How does China appraise self and others? A corpus-based analysis of Chinese political discourse

“…Though not many, some previous studies have been conducted to apply Appraisal System to political discourse analysis. Crespo-Fernández (2013) draws on Appraisal System and critical political discourse analysis to examine Winston Churchill’s speeches to uncover the way in which Churchill skilfully used dysphemism as weapons to exert ideological control on his audience. Abasi and Akbari (2013) examine the attitudinal resources in the discursive representation of three major candidates in the Iranian presidential election.…”

Dysphemization In The Professional Discourse Of The Chairman Of The Russian Government

“…The analyzed publications could be limited to the following list of functions: 1) discrediting a political opponent, 2) adding emotional expressiveness to the statement, 3) explicating verbal aggression, 4) exerting populism in election discourse, 5) delegitimizing the actions of political opponents, be it individual politicians or whole countries (Gladkova, 2017;Golubeva, 2017;Mugair, 2014;Pastuhova, 2014;Ryabtseva, 2017;Shapochkin, 2015;Sokolova, 2014;Usmonov, 2017;Zvada, 2018, etc. ) The fact that dysphemization still remains understudied by linguistic personology (Crespo-Fernandez, 2013;Golubeva, 2017;Yusuf, 2003) significantly limits scientific knowledge about the role of the world's political leaders in the formation of the so-called global system of attitudes to political events and personalities. In addition, the role of disphemisms in avoiding political responsibility has also been poorly researched.…”

Incumbent versus Non-Incumbent Persuasive Speech: 2017 New York Mayoral Elections

“…This can be done by means of resources like dysphemism, or the offensive use of language as a weapon against others. This phenomenon is called quasidysphemism, when a neutral or positive word is charged with a negative intention (see Allan & Burridge, 1991, Crespo-Fernández, 2013, Sánchez Ruiz, 2017 and leading to face affront. Another strategy for discredit is the phenomenon of polarization, which creates a confrontation between two social groups: one in which both the speaker and the audience share some traits and, opposed to it, another one led by their rivals, who are intrinsically perceived as a menace for society (van Dijk, 1993, Chilton, 2004.…”