The role of linguistic devices in political discourse
| Author | Morena Braçaj |
| Position | Mediterranean University of Albania |
| Pages | 17-26 |
Vo
l.
6
N
o
. 1
M
arch
,
2020
ISS
N 2410-391
8
A
cces on
l
ine at www.ii
p
cc
l
.or
g
1
7
A
cademic Journal o
f
Business,
A
dministration, Law and Social Sciences
II
PCCL Publishin
g
, Graz-
A
ustria
The role of lin
g
uistic devices in political discours
e
Dr. Morena Braça
j
M
editerranean
U
niversity o
f
A
lbania
Ab
str
a
ct
A
s we all know people use language to convey meanings for a certain purpose in a certain
s
ocial context but at the same time they place themselves in the social organization according
to their ideologies and power. Thus, linguists have conducted many studies focused on the
way people use their language and especially politicians, who have strong in
fl
uence on the
a
udience by selecting the proper words and linguistic tools to convey the message and their
i
ntention they want to. Therefore, this study aims to provide a brief theoretical overview o
f
the language used in political discourse; with particular regard to the following rhetorical
s
trategies as metaphor use in political discourse, the role of equivocation, the use of personal
pronoun, and rhetorical devices which impose applause. Discourse analysts have concluded
that all these rhetorical strategies are frequently used in many political speeches in order to
convey the message they want and at the same time convince a specifi c audience. Thus, it is
i
mportant to be aware of how politicians make use of all these rhetorical strategies in their
favor in order to convince, inform or transmit the messa
g
e to an audience
.
K
e
y
words: political discourse, linguistic manipulation, metaphor, rhetorical elements,
personal pronouns.
I
ntr
oduc
t
io
n
Linguists have long been interested in the structure o
f
words and sentences and even
t
heir
f
unction, considering that
p
eo
p
le construct structures out o
f
words that are not
onl
y
aimed to make sense but also to serve more s
p
eci
fi
c
p
ur
p
oses:
p
eo
p
le s
p
eak in
order to exchange in
f
ormation, to ask
f
or hel
p
, to
p
ersuade, to
p
romise, to a
p
ologize,
e
tc. accor
d
ing to t
h
eir
p
ur
p
ose in a certain socia
l
context (
A
ustin 1962, Sear
l
e 2000).
D
iscourse anal
y
sts have drawn a ention to
y
et another ver
y
im
p
ortant as
p
ect o
f
language: linguistic choices
f
or the
p
ur
p
ose o
f
conve
y
ing alternative meanings, a
di
erent view o
f
how the world is or
g
anized, o
f
social ideolo
g
ies or cultural belie
f
s.
F
aircloug
h
(1995) believes that discourse constitutes the social. Peo
p
le use language
t
o conve
y
meanings
f
or a certain
p
ur
p
ose in a certain social context but at the same
t
ime t
h
e
y
pl
ace t
h
emse
l
ves in t
h
e socia
l
organization accor
d
ing to t
h
eir i
d
eo
l
ogies
a
nd
p
ower. Thus, language is invested with social,
p
olitical and cultural belie
f
s
(Fairc
l
ou
gh
, 1989).
B
y
stud
y
ing language in circumstances where all its
f
unctions and variations
a
re ta
k
en into consi
d
eration, it is
p
ossi
bl
e to
l
earn more a
b
out
h
ow
p
erce
p
tions,
convictions and identities are in
fl
uenced b
y
language.
I
n
p
olitical s
p
eeches during
e
lection cam
p
aigns, ideas and ideologies need t o be conve
y
ed through language
s
o t
h
at t
h
e
y
are agree
d
u
p
on
by
t
h
e receivers as we
ll
as
by
ot
h
ers w
h
o ma
y
rea
d
or
h
ear
p
arts o
f
the s
p
eech a
erwards in the media. Words and ex
p
ressions are used or
To continue reading
Request your trial