Political discourse

Political discourse and ideology

General characteristics

Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broad historical meanings. It is language identified by the social conditions of its use, by who is using it and under what conditions. Language can never be 'neutral' because it bridges our personal and social worlds."(Frances Henry and Carol Tator, Discourses of Domination. Univ. of Toronto Press, 2002)

What is important for the definition of political discourse, is that its structures are relevant for political structures and processes.

The "Dictionary of political terminology" provides the following definition: "Discourse is a type of verbal communication oriented on discussion and justification of any aspect of actions, thoughts and utterances of its members. "

The most important characteristics of discourse in its modern sense are:• discourse is a complex communicative phenomenon that involves and social

context that gives an idea about participants of a communication (and their characteristics ) and the processes of production and perception of a message [8:312 ];

• discourse reflects the subjective psychology of person, and therefore it can not be alienated from the speaker [1:3-42];

• essentially discourse is a cognitive phenomenon, something that has to do with transfer of knowledge, creation of new knowledge [10:7-25];

• discourse is a " linked text together with extralinguistic , pragmatic and other factors, speech, considered as a purposeful social action as a component involved in the interaction between people and their mechanisms of consciousness ( cognitive processes) "[5:136-137].

D. Hreyber in his work identifies such features of political discourse:• information dissemination is equally important unit of political discourse

towards people;• agenda setting. The point of this function is to control the spread of

information;• projection into the future and the past that lies in predicting future policy,

analyzing the positive and negative experiences of the past [6: 35].

The study of political discourse, like that of other areas of discourse analysis, covers a broad range of subject matter, and draws on a wide range of analytic methods. Perhaps more than with other areas of discourse, however, one needs at the outset to consider the reflexive and potentially ambiguous nature of the term political discourse.

The concept of discourse is used to describe its particular type, such as " political discourse", "scientific discourse". In this case, linguists consider the discourse as a genre [15, 89-91]. Genre stylistic features of discourse allow the addressee to refer this or that text to to any sphere of communication based on specific concepts of norms and rules of communication, the types of communicative behavior, language implementation of speech genre [15, 91-97].

Thus, the political discourse is a discourse generated by politicians. Limiting political discourse by professional boundaries, political activity, we can note that the political discourse is also the form of institutional discourse. It means that political discourse is a discourse generated in such circumstances, as government meeting, Session of Parliament, the party congress. The sender has to make statements as a politician in the institutional setting. Thus, discourse is political when it accompanies political act in a political environment.

Political discourse is a use of language in the social and political sphere of communication and, more broadly, in the public sphere of communication. Due to the theme and place in the system of political communication we can define wether a text belongs to the category of political. Researchers of political discourse distinguish certain criteria that characterize this area of communication. The main criteria are the content, purpose and function of political communication [17, 46]. Political discourse is viewed as a "secondary language subsystem, which has some functions, unique thesaurus and communicative effect" [5, 51]. Many linguists say that the main function of political discourse is a function of persuasion. P. Parshyn affirms that “any text affects the consciousness of the addressee at the semiotic level. But political text, lingual effect is the main goal of communication” [11,203], which is focused on lingual means choice. Therefore, an important feature of political discourse is that the politicians use metaphor, ellipsis, nominalization and other techniques to influence the consciousness of society. Intentions and plans of political discourse sender are always sufficiently defined. As P. Parshyn noted, Parshin, political discourse is a kind of ideological discourse [9, 200, see. also 3,

6-8], its main purpose is to evaluate a social phenomenon from the standpoint of existing ideological guidelines.

Another feature of political discourse is its "focus on the future context" [2, 22]. According to G. Pocheptsova, future contexts are advantageous because they are hard to deny, and can not be verified at this time [11, 52]. These contexts are aimed at future success. It is beneficial to politicians, because when it is time to check the result, one of the objects can disappear - it may be a politician or a recipient who is not interested in these ideas anymore. Political discourse proclaims its ideas as the best and others as lies.

There are two main approaches to the concept of political discourse. according to

the first political discourse is considered as institutional, forming a “set of allspeech acts that are used in political discussions, as well as rules of public

policy,based on specific traditions and proven experience”. The peculiarity of

addresser-addressee configuration of political discourse is that the addressee is society.

According to the second approach institutionality qualifies as one of systemcreating features of political discourse.

Political discourse has special features, and one of them is transformations. Similar words and phrases may come to be reinterpreted within different ideological frameworks. Linked directly to this process is the concept of “representation.” Representation refers to the issue of how language is employed in different ways to represent what we can know, believe, and perhaps think. There are basically two views of representation: the universalist and the relativist (Montgomery 1992). The universalist view assumes that we understand our world in relation to a set of universal conceptual primes. Language, in this view, simply reflects these universal possibilities. Language is the vehicle for expressing our system of thought, with this system being independent of the language itself. The relativist position sees language and thought as inextricably intertwined. Our understanding of the world within a relativist perspective is affected by available linguistic resources. The consequences here, within a political context, seem obvious enough. to have others believe you, do what you want them to do, and generally view the world in the way most favorable for your goals, you need to manipulate, or, at the very

least, pay attention to the linguistic limits of forms of representation.

The problem of truth and falsity in political discourse is the most discussed by linguists, journalists and politicians. The main factor of false information in political discourse is the struggle for power. Lie in the political discourse is a specific kind of lie as it not only misleads but also helps to manipulate people. [6:108]

Depending on causes and motives E. Sheigal distinguishes such types of lies in political discourse:

• Lies for political benefit (hushing up undesirable facts or their complete distirtion);

• defamatory lies as a way to discredit political opponents;

• the paranoid type of lie, a kind of fixed idea (Masonic conspiracy, Western control of Russia)

In political communication honesty concedes political benefit. The graduation message credibility can be represented as a scale on one side we will have an absolute truth and on the other an outright lie. There is an evasion from truth between these two points. Exactly this half-lie is interesting for the study as it is an instrument for manipulation and misinformation in political discourse [6:115]

Language and Politics

Few areas in the social sciences are as closely related as those of the study of politics, ideology, and discourse. Politics is one of the social domains whose practices are virtually exclusively discursive; political cognition is by definition ideologically based; and political ideologies are largely reproduced by discourse.

Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

There are many works in which it is stated that language can affect politics

and it actually does. For example, M.Edelman argues that "political language is political reality”.

The most meaningful formulations on the relationship of language and policy can be include the following [12:7-86]:

• if political is expressed only orally, then the adequate understanding of the political speech is indispensable for an adequate study of politics" (D. Ili, 1981);

• "Discourse of any type ... is the battlefield (a site of struggle). This is a dynamic language and, above all, semantic space, in which social values are manufactured and tested. This is most apparent on the political discourse, as the practice of political activity and political speech is primarily concerned with power " (J. Seydel, 1985);

• "The question of the importance of speech is political by definition, since speech makes one a political creature… Among all forms of activity necessary for human society and represented in it, only two can be referred to political and what Aristotel called bios politicos (the action - praxis and the speech – lexis), from which the whole industry of human affairs grows” (F.R.Dalmeyr, 1984);

• "Language is the most powerful weapon a person. The armed forces are able to keep people in subordination for years, even generations. However, only through language one can manipulate the human mind and persuade people to work towards their own oppression. Similarly, language understanding is the beginning of political independence " (D.Hrin, 1987);

• "Politics is essentially a speech activity in which language is used for informing others about political problems and to persuade in the need to participate in activities related to the problem "(M.L.Hays, 1987).

Discourses make ideologies observable in the sense that it is only in discourse that they may be explicitly expressed and formulated. Other political practices only implicitly show or experience ideologies, for instance in practices of discrimination

on the basis of sexist, racist, or political ideologies. It is in discourse that we need to explicitly explain that such discrimination occurs ‘‘because she is a woman,’’ ‘‘because he is black,’’ or ‘‘because they are socialists.’’ The relations between discourse and political ideologies are usually studied in terms of the structures of

political discourse, such as the use of biased lexical items, syntactic structures such as actives and passives, pronouns such as us and them, metaphors, arguments, implications, and many other properties of discourse. It should be

emphasized, however, that discourse should be conceptualized also in terms of its context structures. It is not sufficient to observe, for instance, that political discourse often features the well-known political pronoun we. It is crucial to relate such use to such categories as who is speaking, when, where and with/to whom, that is, to specific aspects of the political situation. Political discourse, thus, is not only defined in terms of political discourse structures but also in terms of political contexts. Thus, acting as a prime minister, party leader, or demonstrator will typically be perceived by speakers or recipients as a political relevant context category in political discourse, whereas being a dentist or a doorkeeper much less so. Similarly, political contexts may be defined by special settings, featuring locations such as parliamentary buildings or events such as debates or meetings, as

often controlled by precise timing, as is the case in parliamentary debates. Moreover, political discourses and their structures will only be able to have the political functions they have when they are enacting political acts or processes, such as governing, legislating, or making opposition, and with very specific political aims in mind, such as defending or defeating a bill or getting elected.

Political discourse and its properties are controlled by one or more underlying ideologies, possibly through more specific (but still general) social attitudes, on the one hand, and more personal mental models of concrete events, and finally by context models of the communicative situation, on the other hand.

Context models control all levels of style of political discourse, such as lexical choice, pronouns, syntactic structure, and other grammatical choices that depend on how situations are defined. Thus, lexical and syntactic style in a parliamentary debate will be much more formal than an informal political meeting of party members or a propaganda leaflet. Context models control the overall format or

schema of political discourse, such as the formal organization, openings and closings of a debate in parliament, the conversational structure of a political interview, the overall organization of a party program, or the layout of a political advertisement in a magazine or on a billboard. There is a close relationship between discourse, ideology and politics, in the sense that politics is usually discursive as well as ideological, and ideologies are largely reproduced by text and talk. Traditionally, ideologies are vaguely and negatively defined in terms of ‘false consciousness’. In a more contemporary, multidisciplinary approach, ideologies are described in terms of the axiomatic foundation of the social

representations shared by groups. Such general ideologies form the basis of more specific group attitudes, which in turn may influence group members’ individual opinions, constructions or interpretations of specific events, as well as the social practices and discourses in which group members engage. In politics, ideologies specifically play a role to define political systems, organizations, movements, political practices and political cognition, all enacted or reproduced by political discourse. Underlying political ideologies are typically expressed in political discourse by emphasizing Our good things and Their bad things, and by de-emphasizing Our bad things and their good things. Such a general strategy may be implemented at all levels of discourse.

Political Discourse Analysis

What is Political Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow together. There is one notion that helps to break speech or discourse into logic parts. 'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh', 'but', and 'and' that break our speech up into parts and show the relation between parts. 'Oh' prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but' indicates that sentence to follow is in opposition to the one before. However, these markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary says they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some people put 'but' at the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing off gently. Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers is important to prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect every word to have its dictionary meaning every time it's used. (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-do-conversation deborah tannen)

The very notion of Political Discourse Analysis, is ambiguous. Its most common interpretation is that it focuses on the analysis of 'political discourse', although we then still need to determine which discourse is political and which

is not. On the other hand, there is also a more critical reading of the label, as a political approach to discourse and discourse analysis.

We have seen that political discourse analysis first of all should be able to define its proper object of study. In principle political discourse may be about virtually any topic. However, given the constraints of the political context we may assume that political discourse also exhibits preferred topics. First of all, political discourse will be primarily about politics. Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. For example, Charles Fillmore points out that two sentences taken together as a single discourse can have meanings different from each one taken separately. 

Political discourse analysis is both about political discourse, and it is also a critical enterprise. In the spirit of contemporary approaches in critical discourse analysis this would mean that critical-political discourse analysis deals especially with the reproduction of political power, power abuse or domination through political discourse, including the various forms of resistance or counter-power against such forms of discursive dominance. In particular such an analysis deals with the discursive conditions and consequences of social and political inequality that results from such domination (Fairclough 1995; van Dijk 1993b).

The analysis of political discourse is relevant for the new cross-discipline of discourse studies hardly needs any further argument. Indeed, most scholars doing political discourse analysis are linguists and discourse analysts.

Political discourse is considered by linguists as an object of linguocultural study, as secondary language subsystem with functions, vocabulary and communicative impact. Almost all complex relationship between man and society are represented in political discourse. It’s analysis has to research texts along extralinguistic factors and shows how different linguistic groups model cultural values, how social order is promoted, which elements of language picture of the world remain outside conscious speaking strategies.

Characteristically, the actually linguistic methods and linguistic data recently started to be used in the analysis of political discourse. However, you can distinguish the following main types of linguistic analysis of discourse:

• special attention to paraphrase and synonymy (cf. work M.Peshe, P.Anri, Zh.Puatu, D.Maldidyera);

• emphasis on reasoning and syntax (T.Tryu, Zh.Zaydel);

• focus on expressions (compare the work L.Kurdesses, P.Fial, E.Veron, P.Ashard);

• lexical and lexical -metric studies (e.g, Zh.Zhylyamu, R.Munye, Zh.Kommereta and R.Moro, M.Turnyera, A.Berhunyu);

• study of narrative functions (J-P.Feyye);• rhetoric studies (K. Hilomen);• semiotics (R.Bart);• case grammar;• anthropological and sociolinguistic research (compare works of J.Komaroff,

D.Parkin, J-B.Marselezi) [4:43-60].One of widely represented hypothesis in political discourse analysis is a

hypothesis about the impact of language on political thinking. This can be attributed to the most interesting variants of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Indeed, the human mind is based the systems of verbal communication, these systems help to constitute both their conceptual worlds and the structure of government or social worlds associated with them. Conceptual and social worlds are contexts of one another. [7:189].

Specific features of communist discourse

There are several characteristic features of communist discourse. One of them is manipulation. The concept of manipulation in linguistics has been little studied, and the available information is quite scattered. According to I. Sentenberg and V.Karasik, lingual manipulations are understood as a violation of argumentation. T. Nikolaeva understands it as a means of education in a situation of "communicative sabotage" and linguistic doublespeak, and K. Bove and U. Arens – as of achieving goals through persuasion [13:9]. Evasion of truth in political discourse is the result of tendentious representation of reality in the interests of the speaker, which inevitably associated with a specific operation with information. Purposeful transformation information is considered as the most important component of manipulative influence. [14:154-166].

Depending on the nature of the information transformations in the political discourse we may distinguish between the following types of manipulation:

• Referential manipulation associated with the distortion of the denotate / referent image in the process of designation of reality. It may be distortion of the

facts (lying, juggling of the facts, exaggeration, creating referential uncertainty), or focusing manipulation (changing the angle of view and, therefore, the nature of perception denotate, which causes the recipient to perceive him/her in a positive light);

• Argumentative manipulation associated with the violation of the postulates of communication. It may be violation of the text logic and integrity (avoiding an answer, switching of subjects); avoidance to prove what is said/written; disguise of logical moves, such an objection under the guise of consent, false arguments;

Factual manipulation in the political discourse is used to discredit political opponents in order to reduce its political status. There is no doubt the assertion that the message is distorted information about the actions of another makes it easy to hang a label ‘guilty’ on him [16:73].

Thus, the political discourse aims to create a certain perception of the world, a certain picture of the world for the recipient.

One more characteristic feature is expressing of future tense. Expression of future events in the language has a special character, because the future exists only as a possibility, future events from the point of view of logic, do not have independent status [18: 132]. A number of future events is open and the very development of the situation in which these events are possible is branching out, because people can have some influence on them, hence the statements relating to the future, constitute an event as a potential [19: 54]. It is considered, that for interpretation of a statement about the future increases the role of extra-linguistic information, background knowledge, because such statements "are made as the speaker talking at time t0 and related to his role with his position in the communicative situation, with his knowledge at the time t0 and with his attitude to the world. All of these factors have a much greater impact on future events ... "[18:55].

The future by its very nature is an area most open to "indoctrination", for manipulation associated with a particular interpretation of the events and relationships. As future is not realized it becomes a field for potential implementation of all human activities, as number of future events exists only as a pre -scheduled and can be relatively easily changed by a man. And as a natural

modality of future allows a variety of nuances of the speaker's attitude to future events and his role in them the construction of "ideologically correct" way of the future is extremely important for the whole system of totalitarian ideology that should be reflected in certain features of the Soviet ideological discourse. The future of the Soviet ideological discourse is planned and pre-determined, that is "development" of the present. Although the plan itself because of its prospective nature also includes some degree of speculation, the traditional genres of totalitarian discourse tend to present future events as really existing, without the elements of assumption or another modality.

It is obvious that in a totalitarian ideological discourse role of the author is very peculiar. Total control and regulation excludes any kind of uncertainty in public statements with respect to both the present and the future, and because the future is seen as uniquely determined by the will and actions of a collective subject, it is largely controlled by this subject. This distinguishes a totalitarian ideological discourse from other varieties of political discourse. It is not able to such an extent "control" the truth, the verification of its claims. The specificity of the truth aspect of political statements has long been noted by researchers. In the language of politics power of judgment is independent of its truth: political judgment is not verifiable politically. "It is true to the extent that the voicing it agent or group can implement it" [20:131]. Thus, the totalitarian concept of the future is characterized by significant features. A. Karpenko notes that the attitude towards the future when totalitarianism is a consequence of the principle of necessity in the new conditions ("if true, then it is necessary"): “ Under a totalitarian regime the truth about future makes this future self-evident and inevitable… Proclaimed truth of dogmas about future in these conditions is sufficient and necessary condition of the occurrence of the future "[21:73]. On the basis of this representation of the future in a totalitarian ideology: a number of future events is predetermined, closed and unchanged, developing by the only possible line, while the past is open and its events may be easily changed for more exact compliance with ideological postulates.

Probably, the appearance of such a model of the future was possible only within a special kind of ideological discourse. Ritual and mythological nature of the Soviet political language and its functional similarity to the language of primitive societies was noted by many researchers ( including [22] ). Uncritical

perception by the recipient, belief in leader, predetermination of the historical development, continuous playback of specially compiled formulas (compare symbols of faith) converted political communication into a kind of religious. Mythological nature of political discourse that permeates all the attributes of a totalitarian political system, incantatory, magical use of language, symbolic collective actions – all this is aimed at creating strengthening once and for all a special reality, corresponding to the "postulates of political religion" [6: 28-29].

Chapter 2

Doublespeak

Approaches

Definition and History

William Lutz givse such definition of doublespeak in his work "The World of Doublespeak": "Doublespea kis language that prerends to communicate but really doesn't.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 that conceals or prevents thought rather than extending thought,doublespeak limits it." [24].

Lutz provides several defining attributes of doublespeak: • misleads• distorts reality• pretends to communicate• makes the bad seem good• avoids or shifts responsibility• makes the negative appear positive• creates a false verbal map of the world• limits, conceals, corrupts, and prevents thought• makes the unpleasant appear attractive or tolerable• creates incongruity between reality and what is said or not saidAs these attributes indicate, doublespeak can be seen as analogous to

doublethink and Newspeak, concepts created by George Orwell in 1984. Using doublethink, a person could hold two opposing ideas in his or her mind at the same time, fully believing in both ideas. "Newspeak" was the official language

used to express the ideas of doublethink.Language is the basis of all human communication. In fact, it may not be too

farfetched to say that language forms the basis of all human actions. We use language to think, to make decisions, to express our thoughts and feelings on issues. Then, we act as a result of processing information, which we can only do by using language. So, the language we hear and use in our everyday lives influences us and helps shape our opinions to a greater degree than we probably realize. If the language we hear and read is corrupt and misleading, it will corrupt and mislead our thought processes. Not only does language affect how we think and act, it also affects our ability to communicate with other people. To discuss issues intelligently, we must use the language that we all agree on. If some people or groups use their own language of doublespeak that hides the truth and misleads the receivers of the message, then open, honest discussion cannot take place. In other words, we cannot truly relate with others. As Lutz notes, ". . . it is only through clear language that we have any hope of defining, debating, and deciding the issues of public policy that confront us."

George Orwell DoublethinkDoublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two

mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[26].According to the novel, doublethink is:“ To know and not to know, to be

conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."[27]

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... 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 as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the

while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."[27]

Newspeak is the method for controlling thought through language; doublethink is the method of directly controlling thought.

Earlier in the book, doublethink is explained as being able to control your memories, to be able to manually forget something, then to forget about forgetting.

Newspeak incorporates doublethink, as it contains many words that create assumed associations between contradictory meanings, especially true of fundamentally important words such as good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, and justice and injustice.

Orwell's "doublethink" is also credited with having inspired the commonly used term "doublespeak", which itself does not appear in the book. Comparisons have been made between doublespeak and Orwell's descriptions on political speech from his essays Politics and the English Language, in which "unscrupulous politicians, advertisers, religionists, and other doublespeakers of whatever stripe continue to abuse language for manipulative purposes".[28]

Doublespeak by William LutzWilliam Lutz is professor of English at Rutgers University. Lutz points out

that his mission is not to eradicate double-speak, but to eliminate double-speak from the discourse of important issues where it is most dangerous. He states that double-speak is most prevalent in government, followed closely by the advertising industry.

Lutz argues that political language is the language of public policy and power and it is full of doublespeak. The corruption of the language of power and public policy can lead to the corruption of political system and sense of national purpose. Doublespeak, he says, is a language that attacks the very purpose of language, communication between people.

Doubts About Doublespeak by William Lutz is one more very interesting piece on this topic. He gives a very clear picture of what “Doublespeak” is and how it is used in our society every day. Lutz purpose is to promote his speech to a mass audience and try to inform as many citizens as possible about the deceptive qualities that doublespeak contains. With his great examples and clear

explanations he gets his point across to his primary and secondary audience who read his work.

Lutz says "language isn't the invention of human beings to lie, deceive, mislead, and manipulate" (Lutz) and the "purpose of language is to communicate the truth and to facilitate social groups getting together" (Lutz) he states that it is important to highlight doublespeak to the public. Lutz proves to his readers that doublespeak is deceiving and that everyone uses it to make things sound different than what they really are, for example using phrases like “ethnic cleansing” instead of “the defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitation driven out into the countryside” (Lutz) or “passed away”, instead of killed or dead. Even though Lutz does not consider or address opposite views on this topic, has good evidence and knowledge of the subject of doublespeak. He gives many different examples of many diverse situations that we all have encountered or heard. Lutz gives a great example when he uses “member of the vertical transportation corps”, instead of elevator operators.

Lutz styles his peace on Doubts About Doublespeak very interestingly, by making a very clear picture of what “Doublespeak” is and how it is used in our society every day. Even though, Lutz uses more of his knowledge on this situation rather than any other major sources when he writes the article.

Types of DoublespeakMethods of Doublespeak

The first printed textbook on doublespeak can be considered work of French philosopher Schopenhauer, who described 32 deceptive practices by which one can achieve victory in the public debate, in a meeting or in court. These techniques are based on subtle violations of logic or psychological effects such as pathos, intimidation of opponents, appealing to authorities, etc. In the magazine "Raduga» (№ 9 of 1987) Hulot Vooglaid work "Ethics of Reign and Management" was published, which described 66 doublespeak methods.

There are 12 techniques of literary polemics:1. Despicere (look down - lat.) The disputant has to give the enemy feel

of his intellectual and moral superiority.2. Termini (the terminology - lat.) Using a special polemic turns.3. Caput canis (here: to attribute bad qualities - lat.) Consists of art to use

only those expressions that can create only negative opinion about opponent.4. Non habet (here: note the lack of - Lat.).Here you state the lack of

ability that opponent really has.

5. Negare (here: deny - lat.) It consists in a simple denial of all treats typical ti you.

6. Imago (here: the substitution of - Lat.). The reader is given some imaginary "doll-enemy", having nothing to do with the real one, and thet it is simply destroyed.

7. Pugna (beating - lat.) Is based on the fact that the concept of an enemy, or enemy, is assigned a false name, and then the whole debate is being waged against this arbitrarily chosen term.

8. Ulises (Ulysses (Odysseus) - a symbol of cunning - lat.). The main thing in it is to avoid a diret answer.

9. Testimonia (evidence - lat.) Is based on the fact that it is sometimes convenient to use a reference to the authority

10. Quousque is similar to the previous one and differs only in the absence of direct reference to the authority. Just say, "It has long been rejected," or "thing of the past".

11. Impossibile (here: not allowed - Lat.) - Does not allow the enemy to be right in any question or to recognize it.

12. Jubilare (triumph - lat.) - One of the most important techniques, and consists in the fact that the battlefield is always necessary to leave like winner.

The most complete problem of modern doublespeak is described in the work written by doctor of physical and mathematical sciences B.Katsenelenbauma "Demagogy: the experience of classification," in which the author describes the different ways of misinformation by means of doublespeak.

In general each scientist or writer may describe his own etods of doublespeak, but still all of them are very similar.