Doublespeak in Televised Political Debates

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. Nadda Kudrnov, 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. Nadda
Kudrnov, 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 Urbanov, 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
4.6.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 203
5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 206
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 218
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 220

1

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

2

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 peoples 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 20
th
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 Orwells
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 Pooles 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 peoples 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.
3

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 doesnt. 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 speakers 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:
4

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. Orwells 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 conventions
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)
5

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 everyones living room (Gibson and Lutz 1991: 9). The
Nixon administrations doublespeak increased publics 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 Attach in Cambodia who said You always write
its bombing, bombing, bombing. Its not bombing! Its 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 committees 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
6

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 Orwells novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. Massing (2007) compares the Bush administration to the all-
powerful Party in this Orwells 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 administrations 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
7

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 peoples 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.
8

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:

9

Date: October 3 October 11 October 17
Location:
University of
Massachusetts
Wake Forest University Washington University
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
Format:
Single moderator;
candidates questioned in
turn with two minutes to
answer; 60 second
rebuttal; two minute
closing statements.
Single moderator;
answer; 60 second
rebuttal; two minute
closing statements.
Town hall style debate;
single moderator;
answer; 60 second rebuttal;
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
Location:
University of Miami Washington University in
St. Louis
Arizona State University
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
Policy
Domestic Policy
Format:
90-minute debate with
candidates standing at
podiums. Candidates
questioned in turn with
two-minute responses,
90-second rebuttals and,
at the moderator's
discretion, discussion
extensions of one
minute.
90-minute town hall
meeting debate.
Candidates questioned by
uncommitted voters
identified by the Gallup
Organization. Two-minute
responses, 90-second
rebuttals and, at the
moderator's discretion,
discussion extensions of
one minute.
podiums. Candidates
two-minute responses, 90-
second rebuttals and, at the
moderator's discretion,
discussion extensions of
one minute.


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:
10

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


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; Urbanov 2008). According
to Vachek (1974), two essential features of spoken language are its immediateness and
readiness (1974: 413). Urbanov 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 mejrkov (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). mejrkov
(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 mejrkov speaks about such cases as the double communication
11

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 mejrkov (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:

(mejrkov 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.

Moderator
Guest 1 Guest 2
AUDIENCE
12

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 peoples 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.

Sapirs 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
13

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 Ptz 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 hasnt 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 Pinkers 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.

14

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 dont
know their exact meaning (2007: 209).
15

Orwells 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. Xs work is its peculiar deadness are in Orwells 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
16

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).
17

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 dont 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 ministrys 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 20
th
century, such as Nazi, Gestapo
or Comintern. He insists that the words be easy to pronounce and euphonic. He
18

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 peoples 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 Orwells
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 ones 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 Orwells 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
19

Orwells later work was his experience in the Spanish Civil War where he served the
Republican cause. Brent mentions Orwells 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

Orwells 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; Sznt 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
20

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). Luntzs 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 Luntzs 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 Luntzs 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 Luntzs opinion, it is essential that words paint a vivid picture in
peoples minds (2007: 20). The penultimate rule is Ask a Question. Luntz argues that
stating ones opinions by way of rhetorical questions is more personalized and thus
better. On the other hand, the listeners reaction to simple assertions depends to a
certain degree on their opinion of the person speaking (2007: 24). The last of the
Luntzs 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 Luntzs 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
21

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

Luntzs Rules of Effective Communication Orwells 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).
22

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).

23

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 peoples 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
24

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

Lutzs 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).

Rank (1976: 8) Rank (1976: 15)
Intensify
Repetition
Association
Composition

Omission
Diversion
Confusion
Downplay

Intensify Own
Good

Downplay Own
Bad

Intensify
Others Bad

Downplay
Others Good

25

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,
26

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 cant 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).

Ranks schema of intensifying and downplaying can be supplemented by Hahns
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
Hahns 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
27

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. DAngelo 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
DAngelo 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 DAngelos 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
DAngelo1989: 125).
DAngelo (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:
28

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 clichs:

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

DAngelo (1989: 128-129)
29

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).
30

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 hearers 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 peoples perception of facts.

31

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
oclock. Again, the agent is not expressed, and we thus do not know by whom he is
supposed.
Bolingers 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.
32

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
33

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 DAngelo (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 DAngelo (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 ones own good, downplay ones
own bad, intensify others bad, and downplay others good (see chapter 3.1.2).

Lexical doublespeak corresponds to Leechs 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
34

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 Searss code switching and
covers the general category of jargon, which can be further subdivided into
gobbledygook, bureaucratese and officialese as described by DAngelo (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 ones own or others bad or downplay ones own or others 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


The last class is syntactic doublespeak, which corresponds to Bolingers term
loaded syntax and to Sears and Bolingers term non-neutrality in grammar. Similarly to
stylistic doublespeak, all of the forms can be used for any of the four purposes. They
35

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

Intensify own good Intensify otherss bad

Passivisation
Nominalisation
Suffix -able, -ible
Experiencer Deletion
Tagging


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 peoples perception of reality and hence influence their political opinions is
the highest.

36

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
37

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.
38

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 individuals 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 peoples opinions and perception of reality and favorable
39

or unfavorable words can thus be chosen in order to manipulate peoples 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 Lyonss and
Leechs 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 Lyonss social and expressive meaning, and to Leechs 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 Dane (1994), who insists on the necessity to assume
that any utterance or higher discourse unit has an emotional value in its communicative
40

situation (1994: 258). Dane 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! Isnt 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).
Dane (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 Dane (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 ermk (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
(ermk 2010: 118).
Despite insisting that evaluativeness is strongly subjective, ermk (2010: 119)
admits that it can also be objective in cases when it is based on an existing generally
41

accepted norm. Thus, evaluativeness can be comprehended as the expression of
evaluation of reality on the general good bad scale (ermk 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 writers
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 peoples 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.
42

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).

43

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 speakers 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.

44

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 didnt think she was so dumb! (adjective) and I didnt
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
45

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, hes 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 speakers 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).

46

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
from Iraq
0 69 15 84 0 23 0 23
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
Candidates Background
2 0 18 20 0 7 3 10
Security 1 25 1 27 0 7 0 7
Social, Health and
Education Policy
24 5 11 40 4 0 2 6
American Economy 0 12 0 12 0 1 7 8
Resistance to Interest
Groups
2 0 0 2 15 0 0 15
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

47

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.

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
2000
2004
2008
63
199
148
58
135
40
Republican Candidates
Democratic Candidates
48

following analysis shows how certain words can be misused in order to support ones
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 opponents; 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.

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 Kerrys 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.
49

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
contest or conflict)
positive
fail, lose
2. acquire or secure as a result of a
contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor
positive

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)

1. be successful or victorious in
(a contest or conflict)
positive fail, lose

50

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
(COCA)
an act of defeating an enemy or
opponent in a battle, game, or other
competition
positive defeat, loss
great, military,
major, big,
decisive
51

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)
52

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
Obamas 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
(COCA)
accomplishing a desired aim or
result
positive unsuccessful
black, new,
American,
young
53

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
(COCA)
an instance of defeating or being
defeated
positive or
negative
victory
humiliating,
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)

54

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)

be unsuccessful in achieving ones 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.

55

Failed

John Kerry speaks about a failed Iraq being the result of George W. Bushs
presidency.

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

collocates
(COCA)
not functioning properly negative
successful,
prospering
economic

This claim refutes Bushs 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.

56

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

57

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. Bushs 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
(COCA)
able or likely to cause harm or
injury
negative harmless, safe
difficult, new,
armed, violent,
illegal
58

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 Kerrys 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)

feel or cause to feel anxious or troubled
about actual or potential problems
negative ---

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.
59

Ex.: I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the
peace. (John Kerry)

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
(COCA)
not liked or popular negative
fashionable,
popular
economic,
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.

60

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)

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

61

collocates
(COCA)
ready to face and endure danger or
showing courage pain
positive cowardly
new, young,
little, strong,
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 Americas 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
(COCA)
1. lasting or taking a great amount
of time
neutral
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
62

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
(COCA)
remarkable or exceptional,
especially exceptionally good
positive ordinary economic

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
63

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

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

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
institution or practice) in order to
improve it
positive ---
social
(reformer)

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
64

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

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.

65

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
considerably above average
positive
little, small,
minor, modest,
poor,
apathetic, half-
hearted,
miserable
American, big
a) informal very good; excellent positive
b) informal (of a person) very
skilled in a particular area
positive

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)
66

Brave

collocates
(COCA)
ready to face and endure danger or
pain; showing courage
positive cowardly
young, strong,
courageous,
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.

67

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
terrorist
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
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
(COCA)
1. the possibility of suffering harm
or injury
negative
safety
real, great,
imminent,
present
a) a cause or likely cause of harm
or injury
negative

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 ones 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.

68

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
(COCA)
a person or thing likely to cause
damage or danger
negative ---
serious, real,
potential,
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
(COCA)
hate; hatred: intense dislike negative love
racial, ethnic,
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.

69

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

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. Bushs acts in Iraq.

Criminal and terrorist

John Kerry calls Osama bin Laden the worlds 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
(COCA)
criminal: person who has
committed a crime
negative ---
international,
violent
terrorist: a person who uses
terrorism in the pursuit of political
aims
negative --- international

Saying that Osama bin Laden is the worlds 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 Bushs politics. If bin Laden is the biggest
criminal and terrorist, it means that Hussein is not. And Bush was mistaken.
70

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,
nave, 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.

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
Nave 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
young
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Terrorist
organization
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
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
make or become stronger or more intense positive demolish, dismantle

Rebuild
build (something) again after it has been
damaged or destroyed
positive ---

71

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
predecessors, 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.
72

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
(COCA)
able or likely to cause harm or
injury
negative harmless, safe
difficult, new,
armed, violent,
illegal

By claiming that Kerrys and Obamas 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.

Nave

The adjective nave 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 nave 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
(COCA)
(of a person or action) showing a
lack of experience, wisdom, or
judgement
negative worldly
young,
innocent,
stupid

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

73

Dictator

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

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
74

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

Calling Musharraf a dictator helps Obama oppose George Bushs 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
(COCA)
successful,
working
American,
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)

75

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

Young

collocates
(COCA)
short time
neutral
old, mature
beautiful,
handsome,
healthy,
bright,
talented,
attractive
positive

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
McCains 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)

76

collocates
(COCA)
a person who uses terrorism in the
pursuit of political aims

By calling them a terrorist organization, Obama demonstrates that despite
McCains 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 opponents 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.

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

77

Fight

As for the year 2000, the word fight seems to be Al Gores 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 its 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.

1. take part in a violent struggle
involving the exchange of physical blows
or the use of weapons
neutral
---
2. struggle to overcome, eliminate, or
prevent
neutral
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)

78

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.
79

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

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 doesnt 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)

cause great fear or nervousness in;
frighten
negative ---

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,
80

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
(COCA)
an official in a government
department, in particular one
perceived as being concerned with
procedural correctness at the
expense of peoples needs
negative ---
federal,
faceless

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)

81

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

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)

1. mend or repair positive
remove
a) put (a bad or unwelcome situation)
right
positive
b) do the necessary work to improve or
adapt something
positive

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
82

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

By saying that America needs a fresh start, he is implying that George W.
Bushs policy should be replaced by a new one. The word fresh has positive
83

connotations; something that is fresh is also clean, better than the previous one. On the
other hand, Bushs 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
(COCA)
1. lasting or taking a great amount
of time
neutral
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, Bushs 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
(COCA)
a marked change in form, nature,
or appearance
neutral ---
social,
economic,
political

84

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

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.
85

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.

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
(COCA)
of ability, quality, or eminence
positive
little, small,
minor, modest,
poor,
apathetic, half-
hearted,
miserable
American, big

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
86

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
87

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.

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

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.

88

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.

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
(organization)
0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
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
(COCA)
feeling deep pleasure or
satisfaction as a result of ones own
achievements, qualities, or
possessions or those of someone
with whom one is closely
associated
positive
ashamed,
shameful,
humble,
modest
real, happy,
tall, strong,
American

89

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 Kerrys 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,
90

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).

91

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

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

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)
92

In the first sentence, the fact that Roosevelt was McCains 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 McCains 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
couldnt mean such things seriously.
93

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

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
(COCA)
a person looked to by others as an
example to be imitated
positive ---
good, positive,
young

94

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
(COCA)
a person who uses terrorism in the
pursuit of political aims

McCain puts emphasis on Obamas 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.

95

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
(COCA)
short time
neutral
old, mature
beautiful,
handsome,
healthy,
bright,
talented,
attractive
positive

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.

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

96

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.

keep safe from harm or injury positive
attack, harm, hurt,
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 ones 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
97

of the FBI. He comes into my office, when I'm in Washington, every morning talking
about how to protect us. (George W. Bush)

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)

make or become stronger positive
break down, hurt,
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.

98

Modernize

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

Ex.: We're modernizing our borders. (George W. Bush)

adapt (something) to modern needs or
habits, typically by installing modern
equipment or adopting modern ideas or
methods
positive
antique, date,
regress, wear

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

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,
99

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 McCains
opponents 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.

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,
build
2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
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

100

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.

believe in the reliability, truth, or ability
of
positive
distrust, mistrust,
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.
101

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)

1. catch (an animal) in a trap negative
---
a) prevent (someone) from escaping from
a place
negative
2. trick or deceive (someone) into doing
something contrary to their interests or
intentions
negative

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.

walk by dragging ones feet along or
without lifting them fully from the ground
negative ---

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,
102

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 Bushs 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

keep and store up (something, especially
money) for future use
positive ---

Dream
1. indulge in daydreams or fantasies
about something greatly desired
positive ---

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

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 clich expression American dream. This is
103

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 dont have it a national outrage.

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

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
(COCA)
1. relating to the present or recent
times as opposed to the remote past
positive
past, old-
fashioned
American,
western
a) characterized by or using the
most up-to-date techniques, ideas,
or equipment
positive
104

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)

1. reduce (a building or place) to a state
of decay, collapse, or disintegration
negative
save, rebuild a) cause great and usually irreparable
damage or harm to; have a disastrous
effect on
negative

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 wont
offer health care to their employees according to Obamas 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 McCains claims.
105

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)

punish (someone) for an illegal or illicit
act by making them pay a sum of money
negative ---

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 McCains point more than the word
penalize itself would, as the latter is more general and is further from peoples 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.

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

106

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)

become larger or greater over a period of
time; increase
positive shrink, decline

The use of the word grow allows the president to focus peoples 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
(COCA)
successful,
working
American,
economic
107

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. Bushs policy
and not John McCains, he argues that McCains 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
(COCA)
occurring in or relating to a
relatively short period of future
time
neutral long-term immediate

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.

108

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

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)

109

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

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.

110

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

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:
111

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
(COCA)
(of a person or statement) having
or showing great knowledge or
insight
positive
superficial,
mild, slight
severe

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
Gores 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
(COCA)
1. a quantity of precious metals,
gems, or other valuable objects
positive
---
national,
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.

112

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

The most relevant collocates in this context are the words radical and violent.
The aim of using the expression extreme when speaking about Obamas opinions on
environment seems to be an attempt to put Obamas 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.

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
113

Good

The word good can be considered biased in Bushs 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
(COCA)
possessing or displaying moral
virtue
positive
bad, wicked,
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)
114

believe in the reliability, truth, or ability
of
positive
distrust, mistrust,
doubt

The play on the word trust supports Gores point of view. He puts into contrast
trusting the government and trusting the women. Whatever someones 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)

1. an instance or manner of greeting
someone
positive
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.

115

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

The most relevant collocates in this context are the word radical and violent.
The aim of using the expression extreme when speaking about Obamas opinions on
abortion seems to be the attempt to put Obamas 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
116

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 Kerrys objective is to persuade the public that he would approach the
issue in a different way and that this approach would be more successful.

Graph 2: Hidden Bias Related to Other Topics than Iraq

Graph 3: Hidden Bias Related to Iraq
2000
2004
2008
62
61
97
58
74
40
2000
2004
2008
1
138
51
0
61
0
117

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 ones own or his running mates good, to downplay the
opponents good, or to intensify the opponents 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 speakers state of mind, and not as a revelation of
facts (1949: 45).
118

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 rgime 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
119

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 Orwells description, they perfectly fit into Leechs
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.

120

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)

121

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.

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
Dream
0 0 4 4 1 1 1 3
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
122

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.

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

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
2000
2004
2008
31
39
17 14
18
7
123

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.

124

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

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.

125

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.

126

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

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 Kval (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 Kval
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 20
th
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
127

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.

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.

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)
128

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.

1. the power or right to act, speak, or
think as one wants
positive
COCA: religious,
academic, political,
economic,
individual, personal,
human
OCD: academic,
artistic, creative,
economic,
intellectual, political,
press, religious,
sexual
a) absence of subjection to foreign
domination or despotic government
positive
b) the power of self-determination
attributed to the will; the quality of being
independent of fate or necessity
positive

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 thats why a positive aspect was added to the war war
for freedom. Poole then brings to mind George W. Bushs 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.

129

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

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.

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 Obamas 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.

130

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

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
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 ones own home and twice about having ones 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.

the traditional social ideals of the US,
such as equality, democracy, and
material prosperity
positive ---

131

Both the definition and the context in which the expression is used by the
candidates show that it can include any sphere of American peoples 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. Thats 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 Leechs
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.

132

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.

133

Graph 5: Secondary Purr Words

Security

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.

1. the state of being free from danger or
threat
positive
COCA: social,
national
OCD: national,
state, internal,
personal, home
a) the safety of a state or organization
against criminal activity such as
terrorism, theft, or espionage
positive
b) procedures followed or measures
taken to ensure the safety of a state or
organization
positive
c) the state of feeling safe, stable, and
free from fear or anxiety
positive
2000
2004
2008
19
22
28
32
20
18
134

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)
135

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 opponents good.

Accountability

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.

136

the fact or condition of being
accountable; responsibility
positive
OCD: democratic,
financial,
managerial, moral,
parliamentary,
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.

required or expected to justify actions or
decisions; responsible
positive ---

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)

137

Prosperity

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.

the state of being prosperous positive
COCA: economic,
future, greater,
shared, American
OCD: economic,
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.

successful in material terms; flourishing
financially
positive
COCA: peaceful,
stable, democratic,
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 Clintons (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.

138

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 predecessors 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 McCains 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 McCains
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.

139

Justice

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.

1. just behavior or treatment
positive
COCA: criminal,
social
OCD: economic,
natural, social
a) the quality of being fair and
reasonable
b) the administration of the law or
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 Kerrys use of the word justice is very vague, completely out of context, in
combination with the biased verb fight and another purr word equality.

140

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

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.

the state of being stable positive
COCA: political,
financial, economic,
social
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.

1. (of an object or structure) not likely to
give way or overturn; firmly fixed
positive
COCA: peaceful,
democratic,
predictable, strong,
secure, prosperous,
reliable
a) not likely to change or fail; firmly
established

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.
141

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
142

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

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.

1. the quality of bending easily without
breaking
neutral
COCA: greater,
regulatory,
maximum, great,
increased
OCD: considerable,
enormous, great |
added, additional,
extra, increased,
more | maximum,
total | enough,
sufficient
a) the ability to be easily modified neutral
b) willingness to change or compromise positive

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.
143

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

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.

the condition of being transparent neutral
COCA: greater, full,
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.

1. easy to perceive or detect neutral
COCA: open, clear,
accountable
a) (of an organization or its activities)
open to public scrutiny
positive

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
144

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

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.

the state of being equal, especially in
status, rights, or opportunities
positive
COCA: racial,
social, economic,
full, political,
greater
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.

145

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

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

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.

treating people equally without
favoritism or discrimination (definition
of fair)
positive
COCA:
fundamental,
procedural, basic
146

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
147

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.

2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total
Candidates
background and
private life
5 10 11 26 22 14 6 42
United States
future
1 7 4 12 9 5 4 18
Military
missions
6 9 5 20 0 18 2 20
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.

148

Graph 6: Family Relations Words

Candidates Background and Private Lives

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
2000
2004
2008
18
29
20
46
42
18
149

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.
150

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 Downs 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 ones own good, as in this case the candidates support their opponents. This
happens in 2000 and 2004, when both Democratic candidates speak about their
opponents 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 opponents 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 candidates 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 daughtershe's a great father. (John Kerry)

151

United States Future

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 dont 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 peoples point of view on the
subject. There might be some who dont care what happens after their death. However,
taking into consideration ones own children, hardly anyone would want them to have a
hard life or suffer as a consequence of irresponsible behavior of their parents.

152

Military Missions

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 candidates
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 dont 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.
153

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 womans 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 womans 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 peoples
sons and daughters in Iraq and indirectly blames Bushs 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
154

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 opponents 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

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
155

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.

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.

156

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
2000
2004
2008
2
1
15
7
4
6
157

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
the deliberate killing of a large group of
people, especially those of a particular
nation or ethnic group
negative
COCA: Cultural,
Armenian, Nazi
OCD: Mass,
Cultural

Holocaust
1. destruction or slaughter on a mass
scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear
war
negative
COCA: Nuclear,
Nazi, Jewish,
American

a) (the Holocaust) the mass murder of
Jews under the German Nazi regime
during the period 1941-5. More than 6
million European Jews, as well as
members of other persecuted groups,
were murdered at concentration camps
such as Auschwitz.
negative

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

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.

158

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
1. a theory or system of social
organization in which all property is
owned by the community and each
person contributes and receives
according to their ability and needs.
negative
COCA: Soviet,
international;
godless, atheistic
OCD: revolutionary,
| international
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
Europe, in China since 1949, and in
some developing countries such as Cuba,
Vietnam, and North Korea. In this form
of communism it was held that the state
would wither away after the overthrow of
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 peoples
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
negative
159

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

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

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 Russias 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)

160

KGB

the state security police (195491) of the
former Soviet Union with responsibility
for external espionage, internal counter-
intelligence, and internal crimes against
the state
negative
COCA: Soviet,
Russian

As John Kerrys 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 Putins eyes insinuates that McCain is
not as nave 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
161

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.

162

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 candidates 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 ones own good. However, in some of the contexts the analysis has shown
that the candidates also use these words in order to intensify their opponents good
Primary Purr Words

Secondary Purr Words
Rest of the English lexicon
163

(e.g. when candidates praise their opponents family life) or to intensify the opponents
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 elses 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
164

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 Speakers 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 speakers positive face
or the hearers or other partys negative face. Keeping the speakers 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 ones 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).
165

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 Williamss term widening of meaning. Cumming
(2003), unlike Williams and Allan, ignores borrowing words from other languages as a
source of euphemisms.

166

4.6.2 Euphemism as a Form of Doublespeak

For the purposes of the analysis, I suggest merging Williams classification with
Cummings class of semantic euphemisms, with Williams category of widening of
meaning encompassing Cummings 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.

167

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
168

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 audiences 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.

169

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
170

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.

2000 2004 2008 Total 2000 2004 2008 Total
Abortion 2 9 1 12 4 6 2 12
Poor or common
people
16 3 7 26 4 2 17 23
Rich or
influential people
6 2 5 13 4 2 4 10
Unemployment 0 1 1 2 0 3 2 5
Policy against
discrimination
4 0 0 4 7 2 0 9
Disadvantaged
children
4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0
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
years
14 21 19 54 11 20 7 38
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.
171

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

2000
2004
2008
86
56
49
50
43
43
172

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. Bushs 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 Gores 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).

(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
(womans) right to choose widening 2
choice is a womans 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
173

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
those who are opposed to abortion)
widening 1
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.

174

hard-working people who pay the bills widening 6
working people widening 4
those/people at the bottom end of the
economic ladder
metaphor 4
low income people widening 1
people whose lives have been turned
upside down
metaphor 1
total 16

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,
175

or rate is. His expression lower income groups is almost equal to George W. Bushs
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.

lower income Americans widening 2
low- and middle-income families widening/purr 1
total 3

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
presidents priority.

Main street shift 3
middle-income Americans widening 2
working families widening/purr 1
working Americans widening 1
total 7

176

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 whos
collecting a paycheck
widening 1
real-world folks widening 1
those whove 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 19
th
century, and the expression little man or little guy has been used
throughout the 20
th
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.

177

the top (1%) metaphor 5
special interests shift 1
total 6

the top 1%, those at the top metaphor 2
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.

upper income people widening 1
total 2

top income earners widening 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.

the big money people widening 1
total 5

178

those at the top metaphor 1
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
McCains expression just sounds rather childish, Obamas 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.

it would have cost America a lot of jobs metaphor 1
total 1

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 ones 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 elses.

179

people who will lose their jobs metaphor 1
displaced workers widening 1
total 1

(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.

affirmative access widening/bias 2
affirmative action widening/bias 2
total 4

180

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.

total 2

Disadvantaged children

Several euphemisms are used in 2000 and 2004 in relation to low-quality public
schools and delinquency.

education system that leaves no child
behind
metaphor 2
so-called at-risk children widening 1
a child can walk in and have their heart
turned dark
metaphor/bias 1
total 4
181

According to George W. Bushs own words, the expression at-risk children
means children who cant 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 persons 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. Its not the child who is evil, it is their heart,
which turns dark wantonly, without the childs 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 childs fault that s/he is either
stupid or a delinquent. It is either the societys 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.

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 Bushs 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.
182

tax relief metaphor/bias 20
total 20

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.

total 8

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
183

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.

nation building, nation builders, nation
building missions, to build the nations
metaphor/bias 5
peacekeepers widening/purr 2
world's policeman metaphor 1
(worlds) peacemaker widening/purr 1
total 9

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 worlds policeman and worlds 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
184

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.

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.

peacemakers widening/purr 2
peacemaking organization widening/purr 2
peacemaking force widening/purr 1
peacekeeping force widening/purr 1
total 7

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
185

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

use force widening 3
total 3

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.

authorization of force widening 1
disarm Iraq shift 1
total 7

disarm shift 1
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.
186

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.

use of military power widening 1
actions and activities widening 1
total 2

(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.

rogue nation metaphor/bias 1
total 1

187

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.

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.

countries that don't like us very much widening 2
places in the world that harm our national
security
widening/bias/purr 1
total 3

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 dont 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.

188

War

conflict widening 7
total 7

conflict widening 1
total 1

conflict widening 1
total 1

(send our young men and women into)
harm's way
metaphor/bias 3
conflict widening 1
total 4

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 harms way
when speaking about sending soldiers to war. The idiom out of harms 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.

189

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:

to be fortunate enough to earn your vote widening/bias 6
should I earn your confidence widening/bias 1
total 7

If you entrust me with the presidency, if I
am entrusted with the presidency
widening/bias 6
total 6

if Americans trust me with the
Presidency
widening/bias 1
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 elses.
Confidence is the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone
or something.
Al Gores 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
peoples 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.

190

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
vanishing
0 7
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.

strategic interest widening/bias 2
total 2

strategic interest widening/bias 1
total 1

191

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

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 Gores 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.

192

finger pointing, pointing fingers metaphor 5
there's a lot of bickering in Washington,
D.C.
widening 1
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.

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.

193

Euphemisms used only by Al Gore

Have to choose

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

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.
194

Stop money from vanishing

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

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).


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.

195

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


Lie

Both candidates use the word mislead. In addition to that, George W. Bush uses
the expressions misstatement and its not credible. John Kerry speaks about Bush not
being candid and about his figures not being accurate.

mislead widening 6
misstatement widening 1
its not credible widening 4
total 11

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.
196

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.

fiscal sanity widening/bias 3
fiscally sound widening/bias 2
fiscally conservative widening 1
be fiscal conservative widening 2
total 8

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 ones 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
197

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

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

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.

198

Euphemisms used only by John Kerry

Nuclear energy

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

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.


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.
199

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


Bankers

2008: John McCain euphemism
component
frequency
Wall Street shift 7
total 7

2008: Barack Obama euphemism
component
frequency
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

climate change widening 6
total 6

200

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

freedom fighters widening/purr 2
total 2

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
201

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 Obamas 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

(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 ones life includes the verb to lose which might
imply that it is the persons own fault that s/he does not have something any more. If
someone loses his/her life, there is no one to blame.

Ghetto

low-income area widening 1
total 1

202

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

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 McCains language. It is the expression cavalier
activity, which basically means sex.

Sex

(they should not be engaged) in cavalier
activity
widening 1
total 1

The expression cavalier activity meaning sex seems to be Barack Obamas
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
203

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 11
th
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:

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

204

Graph 9: Methods of Creating Euphemisms Used by Republicans

Graph 10: Methods of Creating Euphemisms Used by Democrats

widening
41%
widening/purr
10%
widening/bias
15%
metaphor
16%
metaphor/bias
3%
shift
10%
shift/bias
5%
Republicans
widening
39%
widening/purr
10%
widening/bias
20%
metaphor
13%
metaphor/purr
1%
metaphor/bias
7%
shift
10%
Democrats
205

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 ones
own good, downplay ones 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 candidates 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.

206

5 Conclusions

Although the language whose purpose is to manipulate peoples 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 hearers 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
207

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.

208

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
209

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 peoples 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
210

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.

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.

Primary Purr Words
Secondary Purr Words
Rest of the English lexicon
211

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:

212

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).

***

213

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.

Graph 11: Lexical Doublespeak
2000
2004
2008
219
346
277
207
262
132
214

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

215

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 candidates 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. Bushs and John McCains 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
Kerrys and Barack Obamas 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 ones own or his running mates good, to downplay the opponents good or
to intensify the opponents 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.
216

However, purr words are also used in more concrete ways. They are supposed to
support the candidates 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 ones own good. However, in some of the contexts, the
analysis has shown that the candidates also use these words in order to intensify their
opponents good (e.g. when candidates praise their opponents family life) or to
intensify the opponents 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 elses bad.
However, it is not the speakers 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
candidates 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 candidates 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
opponents 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 ones own point of view or to intensify the bad of ones
217

opponents 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 opponents 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 others bad (downplaying the others
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.

218

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
peoples 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
219

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.

220

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.
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.
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.
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.
221

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 F-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.
ermk, Frantiek (2010) Lexikon a smantika. Praha: NLN, Nakladatelstv Lidov
noviny.
mejrkov, Svtla (2003) Mediln rozhovor jako nr veejnho projevu in
, politika. Ed. by Svtla mejrkovv and Jana Hoffmannov. Praha:
Academia.
Dane, Frantiek (1994) Involvement with Language and in Language in Journal of
Pragmatics. Volulme 22. Issues 3-4. 251-264. [online] Available from
222

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216694901112 [March 16,
2013]
DAngelo, 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 Andrs Sznt. 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.
223

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 Andrs Sznt. 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.
224

Lemann, Nicholas (2007) The Limits of Language in What Orwell Didn't Know:
Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics. Ed. by Andrs Sznt.
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 Anyones
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 Andrs Sznt.
New York: PublicAffairs.
Mathesius, Vilm (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.
225

Naes, Arne, Jens A. Christophersen and Kjell Kval (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 Andrs
Sznt. 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.
Ptz, 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.
226

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/.
Urbanov, Ludmila (2008) Stylistika anglickho jazyka. Brno: Spolenost 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]
227

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
Andrs Sznt. 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.

Doublespeak in Televised Political Debates

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Doublespeak in Televised Political Debates

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MASARYK UNIVERSITY

Вам также может понравиться