Language and Politics: Indirectness in Political Discourse

Abstract

Politicians, in talking about potential face-threatening acts or politically risky topics, avoid the obvious and communicate indirectly in order to protect and further their own careers and to gain both political and interactional advantage over their political opponents. The indirectness may also be motivated by politeness. This obliqueness in communication may be expressed through evasion, circumlocution, innuendoes, metaphors, etc. Language as well as varying social conventions of the relevant culture as well as differing degree of personal danger inherent in the sociopolitical situation in which politicians operate may also affect the degree of indirectness as well as the kind(s) of obliqueness employed.

“Please continue to be an anime lover”: The use of defamation metaphors in Hong Kong electoral discourse

“…In certain domains where adversarial and aggressive verbal acts are prevalent or violations of politeness maxims are deemed as highly undesirable yet inevitable, interactants often resort to different politeness strategies, such as off-record (Brown and Levinson, 1987) or verbal indirectness strategies (Obeng, 1994), in an effort to minimise potential backlashes as they perform these face-threatening acts. This phenomenon is found to be common in medical discourse, where patients sometimes challenge medical practitioners' claims of competency (Defibaugh, 2014), and also in media (Burnes, 2011) and political discourse (Chilton and Ilyin, 1993;Lakoff and Johnson, 1980;Obeng, 1997;Pérez de Ayala, 2001;Wei, 1997Wei, , 1999Wei, , 2000Wilson, 1990;inter alia).…”

What Lies Underneath a Political Speech?: Critical Discourse Analysis of Thai PM’s Political Speeches Aired on the TV Programme Returning Happiness to the People

“…The use of first person possessive adjective our (f=423, LL=548.81) is indicative of the way Mr Obama communicates with his audience in his speeches, i.e. strong involvement of his audience to whatever content he is delivering (see De Fina 1995;Obeng 1997;Wilson 1991;Zupnik 1994 for detailed examples). The use of the article a (f=586, LL=244.07) indicates that information is presented from a general perspective.…”

‘We Are Going to Do a Lot of Things for College Tuition’: Vague Language in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

“…Bull 2008;D'Errico et al 2013;Obeng 1997), the current study is concerned with the three presidential debates held in 2016 between the Republican nominee Donald Trump and the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. It should, however, be stated in passing that in the present study a quantitative analysis of the various 'functions' fulfilled by vague expressions is not pursued.…”