Article Summary

Author’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Article Summary

In this article, Crespo-Fernández (2013) delved into the use of words by political speakers to assert their ideological control over their audiences, thereby persuading them. The purpose of the article is to enlighten the reader about dysphemistic expressions and words found in unforgettable wartime speeches by Winston Churchill following the outcomes of World War II. The author’s analysis and argument were based on two conceptual models, namely, the appraisal theory and critical-political discourse analysis.

Crespo-Fernández clarified that the research methodology followed in this study corresponded to adopting a top-down approach used in explaining data. This approach has three phases, namely, linguistic data selection, data generalizations, and accounting for linguistic items’ meaning to establish the persuasive function they serve in political discourses. The specific methods adopted by this author involved three steps. The first was to collect 27 main samples of political speeches delivered by Winston Churchill around the time of the Second World War. The second step was to sample them to obtain six speeches deemed relevant and useful for the analysis. The third step entailed analyzing the six samples for the identification of dysphemistic lexical items.

As regards the theoretical paradigms, Crespo-Fernández (2013) used the appraisal theory to analyses Churchill’s dysphemistic lexical items because the theory focuses on the speakers’ attitudes, approvals, and disapprovals. It also focuses on their emotions utilized in expressing ideological stances and personal views, criticisms, the language of evaluation, and their positioning of listeners. The author used the critical-political discourse analysis in the theoretical framework because this made it possible to locate political discourses in the broader critical approach to discourse. This was essential in identifying the strategic adoption of linguistic keywords and patterns geared towards attaining particular political objectives and motives. The principal finding of the analysis was that Churchill skillfully adopted dysphemistic language or dysphemism in his wartime political speeches to convey his overt political propaganda aimed at instilling inspirational confidence and courage in his British compatriots in difficult wartimes.

Crespo-Fernández (2013) presented a few main points the first of which was that Churchill’s metaphorical dysphemism was an instrumental tool for condemning the undermining the political, personal, and social status of the Nazis and their autocratic leader, Hitler. This served to reinforce a sense of community and oneness among the British against treats from the Nazis. Churchill also adopted metaphorical dysphemism in depicting the barbarianism and wickedness of the Germans. In essence, metaphorical dysphemism in Churchill’s speeches characterized linguistic xenophobia aimed at demonizing the enemy as a way of instilling courage and confidence.

The second main point was that Churchill used non-metaphorical dysphemism characterized by adjectives with verbal aggression and offensive overtones as the tool to attack the enemies of the British people. By using disparaging words to refer to the enemies and their allies, Churchill persuaded the audience to agree with him in condemning the autocracy, oppression, and murder exercised by the enemies. From a critical outlook, it is evident that both non-metaphorical and metaphorical dysphemism were a part of Churchill’s strategy of expressing extremist contempt toward Britain’s enemies and conveying political propaganda aimed at making audiences react negatively towards these enemies, hence developing confidence and courage.

References

Crespo-Fernández, E. (2013). Words as weapons for mass persuasion: dysphemism in Churchill’s wartime speeches. Text & Talk, 33(3), 311-330.