Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 17:6 (2018) ► pp.789–811
Euphemism as a discursive strategy in US local and state politics
Published online: 14 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17040.cre
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17040.cre
Abstract
Euphemism is a discursive strategy that politicians use to approach unsettling, embarrassing, or distasteful, i.e. taboo, topics without appearing inconsiderate to people’s concerns. Following a critical discourse-analytic approach to political language, this paper discusses the communicative functions that euphemism performs in the discourse of local and state politicians from New Jersey (USA) in a sample of language data excerpted from The Star-Ledger, the state’s largest newspaper. The analysis reveals that (metaphorical and non-metaphorical) euphemism constitutes a major strategy of self-protection and positive self-presentation for legislators which allows them – mostly by understatement, periphrasis, and metaphor – first, to refer to socially disadvantaged groups or address delicate subjects without sounding insensitive; second, to criticize their political opponents in a socially acceptable way; and third, to purposely conceal from the public unsettling or controversial topics.
Keywords: euphemism, political discourse, face, PC language, conceptual metaphor
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The role of euphemism in political discourse
- 3.Theoretical assumptions
- 4.Data and methodology
- 5.Results and discussion
- 5.1Non-metaphorical euphemisms
- 5.2Metaphorical euphemism
- 6.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (39)
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2015. “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig, 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Burridge, Kate. 2012. “Euphemism and Language Change. The Sixth and Seven Ages”. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology 71: 65–92.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
. 2012. “Forensic Deliberations on ‘Purposeful Metaphor’”. Metaphor and the Social World 2 (1): 1–21.
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner. 2002. “Introduction. Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse”. In Politics in Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Peter Chilton, and Christina Schäffner, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cox, Jeremy L. 2012. “Politics in Motion: Barack Obama’s Use of Movement Metaphors”. American Communication Journal 14 (2): 1–13.
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer. 2014. “Euphemism and Political Discourse in the British Regional Press”. Brno Studies in English 40 (1): 5–26.
Degani, Marta. 2015. Framing the Rhetoric of a Leader: An Analysis of Obama’s Election Campaign Speeches. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halmari, Helena. 2011. “Political Correctness, Euphemism and Language Change. The Case of ‘People First’”. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 828–840.
Kahn, Paul. 1997. The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kienpointner, Manfred. 2013. “Strategic Manoeuvring in the Political Rhetoric of Barack Obama”. Journal of Language and Politics 12 (3): 357–377.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krzyżanowski, Michal. 2013. “Policy, Policy Communication and Discursive Shifts: Analysing EU Policy Discourses on Climate Change”. In Analysing New Genres in Political Communication, ed. by Piotr Cap, and Urszula Okulska, 101–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krzyżanowski, Michal, and Bernard Forchtner. 2016. “Theories and Concepts in Critical Discourse Studies: Facing Challenges, Moving beyond Foundations”. Discourse and Society 7 (3): 253–261.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Machin, David. 2013. “What is Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies?” Critical Discourse Studies 101: 347–355.
Musolff, Andreas. 2014. “The Metaphor of the ‘Body Politic’ across Languages and Cultures”. In Cognitive Explorations into Metaphor and Metonymy, ed. by Frank Polzenhagen, Zoltán Kövecses, Stefanie Vogelbacher, and Sonjia Kleinke, 85–99. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Okulska, Urszula, and Piotr Cap. 2010. “Analysis of Political Discourse: Landmarks, Challenges and Prospects”. In Perspectives in Political Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska, and Piotr Cap, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Partington, Alan. 2003. The Linguistics of Political Argument. The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London and New York: Routledge.
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2015. “The Discourse-historical Approach (DHA)”. In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London: SAGE.
Reyes, Antonio. 2014. “Bush, Obama: (In)formality as Persuasion in Political Discourse”. Journal of Language and Politics 13 (3): 538–562.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 2000. “The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy”. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, ed. by Antonio Barcelona, 109–132. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schubert, Christoph. 2014. “Cognitive Categorization and Prototypicality as Persuasive Strategies: Presidential Rhetoric in the USA”. Cognitive Perspectives on Political Discourse. Special Issue of Journal of Language and Politics 13 (2): 313–335.
Shin, Yongjun. 2016. “Connecting Political Communication with Urban Politics: A Bourdieusian Framework”. International Journal of Communication 101: 508–529.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. “What is Political Discourse Analysis?” In Political Linguistics, ed. by Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 11–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2006. “Politics, Ideology, and Discourse”. In Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ruth Wodak, 728–740. London: Elsevier.
Wilson, John. 2001. “Political Discourse”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 398–416. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2015. “Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology”. In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–22. London: SAGE.
Cited by (13)
Cited by 13 other publications
Elena N. Malyuga & Barry Tomalin
Rasul, Muhammad Ehab, Audrey Halversen & Jonathon Smith
Devi, Maibam Debina & Navanath Saharia
Bobeica, Galina
Amernic, Joel & Russell Craig
Kasztenna, Katarzyna (Kasia)
Escoriza Morera, Luis
2021. Political and journalistic discourse regarding the Catalan
declaration of independence. In Discourse Studies in Public Communication [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 92], ► pp. 39 ff.
Fernández Smith, Gérard
2021. A corpus-assisted qualitative approach to political discourse in
Spanish print and digital press. In Discourse Studies in Public Communication [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 92], ► pp. 83 ff.
Muelas-Gil, María
2021. National vs international cartoons depicting Catalonia’s
independence process in the press. In Discourse Studies in Public Communication [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 92], ► pp. 59 ff.
Musolff, Andreas
Ruiz, Raquel Sánchez
2021. Let’s talk about sex in high school. In Discourse Studies in Public Communication [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 92], ► pp. 219 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
