სტატიაში ინგლისური, ქართული და რუსული პოლიტიკური დისკურსის მასალაზე განხილულია ორმაგი სტანდარტის პრინციპზე დაფუძნებული ადამიანის ვერბალური ქცევის ერთ-ერთი საინტერესო სახეობა, რომელიც ინგლისურენოვან ლინგვისტურ ლიტერატურაში ტერმინ „doublespeak“-ით (სიტყვასიტყვით „ორმაგი მეტყველება“) აღინიშნება. აღნიშნული ტერმინი ქართულად გადმოვიტანე, როგორც „მეტყველებითიორგემაგეობა“. როგორც ცნობილია, სიტყვა ორგემაგობა დ.გურამიშვილის შექმნილია და იგი, ჩემი თვალსაზრისით, მკაფიოდ ასახავს ადამიანის აღქმისთვის მახასიათებელ დუალისტურ პრინციპს, განიხილავს რა სამყაროს ანტინომიათა ერთობლიობის, დაპირისპირების ან იდენტურობის თვალსაზრისით. თავად ტერმინი „doublespeak“ 1971 წელს დაამკვიდრა აშშ-ს ინგლისური ენის მასწავლებელთა ეროვნულმა კომიტეტმა. იგი ცნობილი სატირიკოსისა და პუბლიცისტის, ჯორჯ ორუელის ნაწარმოებიდან 1984 აღებულ ცნებათა ddoublespeak (ორმაგიაზროვნება) და „newspeak“ (ახალი მეტყველება) ნაერთია. მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობა არის ვერბალური ქცევის ტიპი, რომელიც ბოროტებას სიკეთის ნიღბით ფარავს, უარყოფითს დადებითად წარმოაჩენს, უსიამოვნოს-მიმზიდველად, არაჰუმანურს-ჰუმანურად და ა.შ. ანუ, აღნიშნულ შემთხვევაში არქეტიპული ბინარული სტრუქტურის უარყოფითი სემანტიკის მატარებელი წევრი ჩაენაცვლება დადებითი სემანტიკის მქონეს. მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობა საშუალებას აძლევს მთქმელს, თავიდან აიცილოს პასუხისმგებლობა. სპეციალურ ლიტერატურაში არსებობს მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობის სხვადასხვა კლასიფიკაცია. ჩატარებული კვლევის საფუძველზე გამოვყავი მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობის შემდეგი კოგნიტიური ტიპები:
1. მიმართება ცუდი – არაკარგი; აღნიშნული მიმართება ლინგვისტურად რეალიზდება ჟარგონის, ევფემიზმების, ბიუროკრატიზმების მეშვეობით; ორგემაგეობის აღნიშნულ ქვეტიპს ახასიათებს ორაზროვნება, ბუნდოვანება.
2. მიმართება შავი – თეთრი; აღნიშნულ შემთხვევაში არ არსებობს შესატყვისობა რეალურ ობიექტსა თუ ხდომილებასა და მათ ლინგვისტურ ნომინაციას შორის, რასაც, ბუნებრივია, მივყავართ ლინგვისტური საშუალებების ინფლაციამდე.
3. მიმართება ტყუილი – მართალი; აღნიშნული მიმართება განვიხილე რ.გესისა და თ.სეიტერის მოტყუების სტრატეგიების თვალსაზრისით, კერძოდ: ა) ინფორმაციის დამახინჯება; ბ) გამოტოვება (ინფორმაციისგარკვეული ნაწილის გამიზნული დაფარვა); გ)ფალსიფიკაცია; დ) ოდენობის სტრატეგია (ინფორმაციის ოდენობის გამიზნული შეცვლა); ე) თვისობრივი სტრატეგია (ინფორმაციის არსის შეცვლა); ვ) რელევანტურობის სტრატეგია (ინფორმაციის ღირებულების დაკნინება); ზ) მკაფიობის სტრატეგია (არამკაფიო, ბუნდოვანი ინფორმაციის მიწოდება).
საკვლევ მასალად გამოყენებულ იქნა ისტორიულ დოკუმენტებში, მასობრივი ინფორმაციის საშუალებებსა და პოლიტიკოსთა გამოსვლებში ასახული ქართულ-რუსული ურთიერთობანი გეორგიევსკის ტრაქტატიდან 2008 წლის აგვისტოს ომის ჩათვლით.
ნაშრომში კოგნიტიური თვალსაზრისით არის განხილული მეტყველებითიორგემაგეობის ისეთი ნიმუშები: როგორიცაა: პროტექტორატი, სოვეტიზაცია, ხალხის მტერი, ანტისაბჭოთა ელემენტი, ტერორისტი, სეპარატიზმი, არაპროპორციული ძალა და სხვ. განსაკუთრებული ყურადღება ეთმობა მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობის უნარს მოახდინოს პოლიტიკოს- თა ქცევის ვერბალურ დონეზე ლეგიტიმაცია; ანუ პოლიტიკოსს, რომელიც თავის ოპონენტს ტერორისტს უწოდებს, მიაჩნია, რომ სახელდებამას უფლებას აძლევს, ფიზიკურად გაანადგუროს მოწინააღმდე, სახელდება აღნიშნულ შემთხვევაში სასიკვდილო განაჩენის ტოლფასია.
სტატიაში მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობის პრაგმატიკული მახასიათებლები გაანალიზებულია სახისა და თავაზიანობის თეორიების თვალსაზრისით. მეტყველებითი ორგემაგეობის ტექნიკა შეიძლება განვიხილოთ სახის შენარჩუნების მნიშვნელოვანი სტრატეგიად. დაკვირვებამ ცხადყო, რომ მიმართებაცუდი -არაკარგი დეფერენციული თავაზიანობის სტრატეგიის ნიმუშია, მაშინ როდესაც მიმართებები ცუდი – კარგი და ტყუილი – მართალი შიდაჯგუფურ სიტუაციაში სოლიდარობის სტრატეგიის მაჩვენებელია, გარეჯგუფურ სიტუაციებში კი – სახის რღვევის საშიშროების შემქმნელი აქტი.
Some Semantic and Pragmatic Peculiarities of Doublespeak in Political Discourse
It is common knowledge that politics and the political infuse all aspects of our lives, our attitudes as well as our behaviour (Negrine 1991:3), they infiltrate our mind and character. Hence it is quite natural and essentialto consider political discourse in close relationship with political cognition. As Teun van Dijk maintains:
The study of political cognition largely deals with the mental representations people share as political actors. Our knowledge and opinionsabout politicians, parties or presidents are largely acquired, changed andconfirmed by various forms of text and talk during our socialization, formaleducation, media usage and conversation. (van Dijk 2008:203).
Different genres of political discourse as well as various means and techniques they employ for transmitting values and beliefs shape our mental maps of the world. As a result, to paraphrase C.Wright Mills, we live in the second -hand world. The quality of our lives is determined by meanings we have received from others. Everyone lives in the world of such meanings ( Said 1981:42).
Inseparability and dialectics of discourse and cognition, language and thought is vividly shown in the notion of doublespeak. As is known, the term doublespeak blending two Orwellian concepts newspeak and doublethink signifies an evasive type of verbal behaviour. Its aim is to divert attention from or conceal the truth, making the bad seem good, the aggressive – noble, the inhumane – humane etc. (McArthur 1996:296) The constituents of the given portmanteau word are of particular interest as theydemonstrate the efficiency and significance of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As is known, in George Orwell’s dystopian novel `1984′ Newspeak is the method of controlling thought through language; it is the new totalitarian language which replaces Oldspeak i.e. Standard English and aims tonarrow the range of thought and eliminate an individual’s ability to thinkcritically. As a result, such positively-connotated terms as `freedom’, `peace’ `knowledge’, `love’ are re-conceptualized and defined via theirconceptual opposites and finally are replaced by them. Consequently, according to Orwell, doublethink (the underlying cognitive structure of `Newspeak’) is the mental activity of simultaneously knowing and not knowing, denoting an ability to be conscious of the truth while telling lies, so that one could hold two contradictory views at once and manipulatelanguage to meet the exigencies of the moment (Orwell), Thus the principle : ‘If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought'(Orwell 1946) is at work. I quite agree with Douglas Kellner’s viewpoint that doublespeak with its smoothed contradictions and unified opposites is, to some extent, similar to Marcuze’s `one-dimensional language’. (Kellner 1984).
The study of scholarly literature (Lutz 1989, McArthur 1996, Orwell 1946, 1990, Postman 1976) and the analysis of English, Georgian and Russian empirical data have proved that doublespeak is mostly characteristic of public and political discourses and such an agency of socialization as mass media. It is a powerful tool of information warfare as well. The study has been carried out on the material of the Georgia – Russia relationship reflected in historical documents, news coverage and political speeches. As Teun van Dijk puts it, one of the difficulties when investigating politicaldiscourse is that a researcher cannot remain neutral, one must take a position. I have tried my best to remain neutral and be objective, however, objectivity is a relative notion.
According to W. Lutz’s definition: ‘When a euphamism is used to deceive, it becomes doublespeak.'(Lutz 1989). However, the results of myresearch have revealed a different configuration.. The semantic and cognitive analyses of the data have shown that the underlying cognitive structure of doublespeak is of binary character; I have singled out three types of doublespeak:
1. bad is replaced by ungood; linguistically it is expressed by means of jargon, bureaucratese, euphemism, hedging etc. The given type frequently leads to linguistic ambiguity.
2. relation black – white (`loyal willingness to say that black is white when party discipline demands’ ,Orwell, ,1984′), bad is presented as good, i.e.: there is no correspondence between a piece of reality and its linguistic nomination. Hence the gap naturally results in inflated language.
3. relation false -true. Deception is quite typical of doublespeaking; in fact it is closely associated with it. To characterize the third type of relation I have used R, Gass and J. Seiter’s classification of deception strategies. As is known, R. Gass and J.Seiter have singled out 7 deception strategies (1999): distortion (saying sth. that can mean two or more things), omission (intentionally concealing information), falsification (giving false information), quantity (altering the amount of information that should be given), quality (altering the essence of information), relevance (changing theimportance of information), and clarity (not giving clear information). From the enumerated, the strategies of distortion, falsification and that of quantity are most frequently used in doublespeak narratives.
According to my observations, though the term `doublespeak’ was coined in the 1950s, the art of doublespeaking as a way of making facticity,rather than describing it, has had an age-long history. The Georgian – Russian relationship is a perfect example of the above-said.
Factfile 1. The relationship between Georgia and Russia starts in 1783 with `The Treaty of Georgievsk’. It was a bilateral treaty concluded between the Russian Empire and the east Georgian kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti on July 24, 1783. The treaty established Georgia as a protectorate of Russia, which guaranteed Georgia’s territorial integrity and the continuation of its reigning Bagrationi dynasty, in return for prerogatives in the conduct of Georgian foreign affairs.
However, the results of the treaty proved disappointing for Georgians; gradually, both East and West parts of Georgia were annexed, the Bagrationi dynasty deposed, its representatives were exiled, the autocephalous status of the Georgian Orthodox Church was abolished, the Georgian Church was subjected to the synodical rule of the Russian Church and the Georgianliturgy suppressed and replaced with the Russian one. Thus all the terms of the treaty were violated.
In the given context the notion of protectorate is of particular interest. As is known, etymologically the given word originates from the Latin protectus, pp. of protegere – to protect, pro-before, in front, tegere – to cover;
To protect is a word of positive semantics, meaning to shield from injury, danger, or loss; guard; defend.
In international law, protectorate is a country or region that is protected diplomatically and militarily against third parties by a larger state or entity. In exchange for this the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the nature of the relationship between the two countries. Whatever the terms, a protectorate retains sufficient measure of its sovereignty and remains a state under international law. Two types of protection are differentiated:
a. amicable protection whose terms are often very favourable for the protectorate. The political interest of the protector is often moral ( it may be a matter of image, prestige, ideology, internal popularity, dynastic, historical or ethno-cultural ties etc.) or countering a rival or enemy power, preventing it from obtaining or maintaining control of areas of strategic importance.
b. colonial protection implies less generous conditions for a protectorate. The protectorate is often reduced to a de facto condition similar to a colony.
Though the treaty of Georgievsk seems to be a sample of amicable protection, actually it served as a prelude to the annexation of Georgia. In the given context the notion of protectorate is inflated since there is a gap between the declared terms of the treaty and the real intentions of theRussian Empire. Moreover, the analysis of the history of variousprotectorates has proved that in almost all the cases the relationship of protectorate was a disguised form of annexation. Thus the term protectoratecan be considered a sample of doublespeak as it implies the relation black – white or bad -good. The doublespeak nature of the term protectorate is clearly revealed in the evaluations Russian historians give to the Georgievsk treaty of Protection and its consequences; they nominate it as `the act of brotherhood of the Russian and Georgian peoples that justified annexation to dynasty.’ One of the implicatures of the given evaluation is the image of a great, noble nation, the defender of the weak. Thus annexation was done for the sake of protection, that is annexation is protection.
Factfile 2. Georgia gained its independence in 1918, but lost it in 1921 when Russia, this time the Soviet Russia, annexed it for the second time; the act of annexation was masked by the term sovietisation (советизация) i.e: Georgia became one of the Soviet Socialist Republics and was again part of the modified Russian Empire. The semantic analysis of the political term in question has proved that sovietization is interpreted in two contrasting ways.
Sovietization originates from the Russian word совет (sovet meaning council). Soviet was a primary unit in the political organization of the USSR. The first soviets formed by workers, soldiers and peasants served as revolutionary committees in the 1905 and later in the 1917 revolutions. According to the revolutionary leaders they symbolized `the hegemony of common, working people’. In the Soviet Union the soviets became the basic political units, forming a hierarchy from rural councils to the Supreme Soviet (Верховный Совет).
Sovietization is a culture-specific term, closely associated with Russia’s history and culture, as well as Russian imperial mentality. Soviet and most post-soviet Russian historians, politicians and politologists interpret sovietization as a positive phenomenon, for them it meant the spread and expansion of `noble ideals and high moral principles of socialism and communism’. The metaphor of the noble, caring Big Brother, the Great Russian Nation (Великий Русский народ) protecting smaller, helpless nations and helping them to survive is of dominant importance in the given conceptual system. The holders of the given representations do not want to admit that sovietization was built on violence, terror, repressions. For them Soviet Union symbolized `brotherhood and friendship of the soviet peoples.’ Similarity between the evaluation of the Soviet Union and that of the relation of the protectorate between Georgia and Russia is apparent. Moreover, in 1983 the Soviet authorities (both in Russia and Georgia) celebrated bicentennial of the Treaty of Georgievsk. Thus within the framework of the Russian culture (with very few exceptions) sovietization is a doublespeak term based upon the principle black-white, i.e.: it reveals incongruity between the historical reality and its nomination. However, it should be admitted that the soviet propaganda has had its results; in the post soviet countries there are many people who still sincerely believe in the `ideals and principles of the Soviet Union’, hence `homo sovieticus’ is not a fiction but a bitter reality.
By contrast, according to the definitions given in different monolingual dictionaries of English, sovietization is a negatively-connotated political term; to sovietize means: a. to force into conformity with soviet cultural patterns or governmental policies; b. to bring under Soviet control. The given definitions imply forceful transformation of the political system of a country into the undesirable one.
The case of sovietization proves J.Derrida’s viewpoint that the meanings of individual signs are produced by the differance between that sign and other signs, hence words are not self-sufficiently meaningful, but only meaningful as part of a larger structure that makes meaning possible. This viewpoint is very much true of doublespeak, which is largely contextdependent, context- variable phenomenon.
Since the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, doublespeak was an accepted norm of verbal behaviour at different levels of its society and in every sphere of man’s activity.. Doublespeak served as an essential means for constructing the identity of the `other’ Let us consider some samples of soviet doublespeak:
1. an enemy of the people (враг народа) – this is the name given to the opponents of the soviet regime ( or those who were considered to be opponents – noblemen, clergymen, bankers, merchants, intellectuals etc.) or just critically-minded people up to the 1950s. The name was like a stigma passed down to the children of `the enemies.’ In the given case the critical term opponent is replaced by its extreme synonym enemy, i.e.: the word with positive semanticsis replaced by the word with negative semantics. The choice of the word enemy, and generally of the whole phrase, had far-reaching aims; firstly, it instantiates the dichotomous vision of `us’ and `them’- `people’ as the domain of `us’ is opposed to the domain of `them’, `others’- `enemies’, secondly, the phrase arouses negativepropositions `enemies are dangerous for the rest of the people,’`enemies must be destroyed’ hence the given verbal behaviour legitimized and `justified’ deportations and mass killings of thousands of people.
2. the term anti-soviet elements (антисоветские элементы) replaced the term an enemy of the people from the 1950s. It referred to dissidents and human rights defenders. At first sight the term in question sounds more euphemistic. However, closer inspection of the nomination in question proves that the first impression is illusive. The word elements is of particular significance; its definition is as follows: a particular group of people especially people who are regarded with disapproval within a larger whole.(Longman Dictionary of Language and Culture). As R Fowler maintains today `group’ is a central ideological concept in the domain of `them’ and it has implications of being alien and threatening for the rest (Fowler 1991).As for the term anti-soviet, according to the soviet politologists, antisovietism was synonymous to anticommunism,; the latter being an idealogical and political basis of the psychological warfare imperialism waged against communism for the purpose of undermining public consciousness (Волкогонов:1983). The definition of anti-sovietism as well as the term anti-soviet elements are perfect samples of the soviet political jargon. The cognitive structure of doublespeak in this case is goodungood.
Since the 1990s, when the remnants of the Soviet Union were transformed into Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the term terrorist has been used to designate opponents of the newly modified Soviet Empire. These are mostly freedom-fighters, representatives of those nations and countries that were annexed and joined to the Russian Empire 200 hundred years ago (Chechens, the Ingush) The name-givers -the Russian authorities believe the term terrorist gives them the right to carry out anti-terrorist operations against their opponents. The name-giving in this case serves as a verdict, a sentence to death. Thus the construction of the identity of the `other’ against whom the Russian imperial machine intends to wage war is one of the powerful measures in legitimizing war. The discussed three examples of name-giving speech acts can be considered performatives/indirect declarations as in each case the verbal behaviour brings about and results in specific non-verbal activities.
Doublespeak has been an important political weapon in the information warfare Russia has waged against Georgia since the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia.
In the given case the Russian political discourse which embraces presidential speeches, speeches made by officials of different rank, mass media coverage is built on the principle of doublespeak, mostly of false-true type. The main message is as follows:
Russia accuses Georgia of:
a. waging a war against South Ossetia. (,Где-то в районе часа ночи мне позвонил министр обороны Сердюков и сказал что по их информации Грузия объявила войну Южной Осетии, Кавказский квадрат)
b. aggression against South Ossetia.(Мы бы не хотели что-бы Грузия, которая выступила в качестве агрессора, продолжала бы вооружаться, /Mедведев расценил действия Грузии в отношении Южной Осетии как акт агрессии, Кавказский квадрат)
c. genocide of Ossetians (Д. Медведев подчеркнул, что: „…варварские акции грузинской стороны привели к гибели свыше 2000 человек мирного населения, большая часть которого – российские граждане, убийству и ранениям российских миротворцев, исхода из региона свыше 30 тысяч беженцев, фактическому уничтожению столицы Цхинвали.“ (Новости Российские) (according to the Russian sources 2000 were killed, however, according to the investigations of different international organizations 162 people were killed, mostly military and paramilitary men. Recently, this information has been confirmed by the so-called president of the so-called South Ossetian republic).
As a result, Russia could not stand the injustice and came to the aid of the South Ossetian people. Russia was obliged to recognize the independence of South Ossetia.
In order to decipher the discourse in question some factual information should be considered:
Factfile 3. According to the scholarly literature (historical, geographical, archeological, and linguistic works) Ossetians are a nomadic people of Iranian origin whose original homeland was Middle Asia and later the steppes of the Northern Caucasus. In the 17th century because of the Mongols they started migrating to Georgia and found refuge there. Nowadays Ossetians live throughout the whole territory of Georgia; there isa high percentage of mixed families.
South Ossetia is a non-existent geographical notion. South Ossetian Autonomous Region was artificially created in 1922 after the sovietization of Georgia. One of the ancient towns of Georgia Tskhinvali (the toponym originates from rcxila the Georgian name for hornbeam) with no Ossetian population was named as its capital. It has been followed by the demographic expansion as well as the falsification not only of Georgian history but the history of the world. It should be stressed that right on the other side of the Greater Caucasus (4050 – 5 600) North Ossetian Autonomous Region was formed on the originally Ingush territory within Russian Federation. The implications of the precisely chosen region names are as follows: Ossetia is divided into two, some day it will be united. Hence the names of the regions South Ossetia and North Ossetia create ambiguity and they can be considered samples of doublespeak since they are built onthe false-true principle. In general, the formation of autonomous regions on the territory of Georgia, as well as, on the territories of other soviet republics was the reflection of the `divide and rule policy’ of the Russian Empire. At the same time they served as an obstacle on the path towards the independence: every time any of the soviet republics showed its striving to be independent, ethnic conflicts were provoked in the artificially created formations. And the main provoker of the conflict played the role of a mediator and peacekeeper. The same happened in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia in the 1990s. Moreover, to protect the citizens of the regions in question Russia started the passportization of the given regions, hence according to the Russian sources, the war was the only way, the only possibility to defend Russian citizens. (Россия не допустит гибели своих соотчественников в Южной Осетии, Кавказский квадрат.)
Considering the above-given geopolitical and historical information it can be concluded that the discussed pieces of Russian political discourse are built on the following principles of doublespeak:
1.black-white: a. the victim of the war, Georgia is presented as the aggressor.
b. the invader and the occupant( Russia) is called the liberator, the defender of the weak. In the Russian political discourse on the subject the metaphor of moral strength is traceable: the Georgia-Russia war is regarded as a war of good against the forces of evil, which must be fought ruthlessly. (Российской Федерации пришлось принять жесткие ответные меры, в результате которых были сохранены сотни тысячи жизней и был восстановлен мир на Кавказе который находился под угрозой, Кавказский квадрат). It is noteworthy that in his speech on September 13, 2008, D. Medvedev, compared the Georgian military actions during the war to 9/11 terrorist attack.
2. false-true: the deception strategy of quantity was used to accuse Georgia of the genocide, the number of casualties was exaggerated. Moreover, the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population in the 1990s and 2008 was concealed ( the deception strategy of omission).
In the Georgian political narratives on the subject both direct and doublespeak type evaluations of the conflict in question are encountered. In my opinion, the inconsistency of the Georgian political discourse is caused by some dubiously interpreted terms, the term separatism being one of them. The Georgian officials often refer to Abkhazian and Tskhinvali regions as separatist. As is known, separatism is usually applied to describe the attitudes or motivations of those seeking independence or separation of their land or region from the country that governs them. The use of the term is incongruous with the historical, linguistic, cultural and geopolitical facts that prove that Georgians have always been the indigenous population of the given regions, hence the use of the term separatist regions in Georgian political discourse means the admittance of the right of Abkhazians and Ossetians to seek independence of their land and secede from Georgia. In this particular context the term separatism can be considered a doublespeak term of the category false -true, viz. it fits its subcategory – the deception strategy of clarity. But in the given case the use of doublespeak, or rather its misuse harms the speaker’s interests.
The analysis have shown that evaluations of American as well asBritish politicians on the subject of the Georgia-Russia war are characterized by directness as well as the use of a doublespeak technique, mostly of bad – ungood type; e.g.; President Bush called the actions of Russia in Georgia an unacceptable conduct in the 21st century. Likewise, David Miliband says the way in which Russia is conducting foreign affairs is unacceptable. .. it is simply not the way that international relations can be run in the 21st century. In the given examples the terms invasion, intervention are replaced by the sample of political bureaucrateze – unacceptable conduct. Western politicians often characterize Russia’s response to Georgia’s military actions as disproportionate. contextually implying the violence against the civilians and the size of the damage. As is known, proportionality as a law of war concept is much debatable , hence the rule of proportionality is subject to frequent misinterpretations. In J.Keiler’s viewpoint `disproportion can be seen as the edge of an effort to delegitamize actions by western nations against weaker countries or non-state actors.’
The pragmatics of doublespeak has been studied from the standpoints of face and politeness theories. Doublespeak technique can be regarded as a face-saving strategy conditioned by the desire of the speaker to be ratified, approved of, liked or admired. The instances of doublespeak of bad-ungood type can be viewed as samples of deference politeness strategy which emphasizes distance (+D) between the participants, i.e.: the speaker out of respect for the hearer’s negative face advances his imposition with care, trying to give the hearer `a way out’ in case the hearer regards the imposition as too great. As for the doublespeak types black-white and falsetrue, when used in in-group situations they can be regarded as samples of the solidarity politeness strategy which emphasizes the existence of the common grounds in the participants’ relations with little distance (-D) and a slight power (-P) difference between them. However, when used in out-group situations, instances of bad-good and false -true doublespeak types can be regarded as face-threatening acts.
In conclusion it can be said that the study of the phenomenon of doublespeak as one of the devices of political discourse has proved once again that political discourse ( as K. Cowan puts it) is a form of power arrived at through consent. It both constructs and is constructed by the powerful and its construction invariably has a profound impact on the direction of domestic and foreign policy.
Brown, P., Levinson, S., Politeness: Universals in language usage, Cambridge, CUP, 1989.
Cap, P., Legitimization in Political Discourse, A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric, Cambridge Scholars Press, 2006.
Cap, P., Where Lexicon Meets Cognition: Can Crisis Construction and Legitimization of Policies be Studied through Lemma Patterns? in: `Advances in Discourse Approaches’, ed. M.Dynel, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009.
Chilton, P., Orwellian Language and the Media, London, Pluto Press, 1988. Cowan, K., What is Wrong with War on Terror?, International relations, online ms.) 2009.
Derrida, J., Margins of Philosophy, Chicago University Press, 1984. Fowler, R., Language in the News, Discourse and Ideology in the Press, Routledge, London and New York, 1991.
Gass, R., Seiter, J., Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining, Allyn and Bacon, 2007.
Goffman, E., On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction, in Laver, J. and Hutcheson (eds.) Face-to-face communication, Hardmondsworth : Penguin, 1955.
Hartley, J., Understanding News, Studies in Culture and Communication, London :Methuen, 1982.
Keiler, J., The End of Proportionality, (online ms), 2009.
Kellner, D., From 1984 to One-Dimensional Man: Critical Reflections on Orwell and Marcuse. http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell13a.htm.
Lakoff, G., Metaphors, Morality and Politics, or Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals in the Dust, (online ms), 1995.
Lutz, W., Doublespeak, NY, Harper and Row Publishers, 1989.
Mihas, E., Non-Literal Language in Political Discourse, LSO Working Papers Linguistics 5: Proceedings of WIGL, 2005.
Negrine, R., Politics and the Mass Media in Britain, Routledge, London and New York, 1991.
Said, E., Covering Islam, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.
Postman, N., Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Delta Books, 1976.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S.Wong, Intercultural Communication, Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Searle, J., R., Indirect Speech Acts, In `Syntax and Semantics `, vol. 3, Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds) Academic Press, NY, 1975.
Orwell, G., Selected Essays, Penguin Books, 1946.
Orwell, G., `1984′ , Penguin Books, London, 1990.
van Dijk, T. A., Political Discourse and Political Cognition, online ms. Волкогонов, Д. А., Психологическая война, Военное Издательство, Москва, 1983.
Топчишвили, Р., Об Осетинской мифологеме истории, Тбилиси, `Эна да Култура’, 2005.