The linguistic game of politics

Since the first question asked in the House in 1721 many aspects of political language and discourse structure has sustained within discussions. As respected politicians, each Member of Parliament is elected by a proportion of the population to represent the voice of the individuals in their constituency. 

'Mr Speaker...'. 'Would my right honourable friend..'.The asking of a question with such formality focuses public attention on issues that may concern them whilst expressing identity with a party.  They are expected to make use out of every opportunity to steal voters from opposing parties and increase their chances of determining the future for the country.  Another purpose David Crystal proposes is to cause trouble for the opposing party; on the spot confrontation replaces the discourse structure of question/answer and violation of Grice's conversational rules takes place...

 

Quantity- Grice claimed that we shouldn't talk for more than what is required. Politicians tend to waffle in their responses in order to avoid more confrontations.

 

Relevance- In conversations we are expected to answer direct questions and talk about the topic of discussion. MPs often forget this in the Houses of parliament and try their best to dodge difficult questions.  A study of parliamentary oral answers to questions responded to in the House in 1986 demonstrated how over forty questions were asked in a session- 80% of which required a direct yes/no response, however  were not answered so directly. 

 

Quality- We assume that people tell the truth in conversations and respond accordingly; however politicians have the assumption that their opponent is full of lies and are known for challenging them on their policies and expecting explanations. Questions and answers should rarely be taken at face value within politics.

 

Manor- We should avoid repeating ambigious points and follow orderly turn-taking. This maxims is not violoated within the house of commons as there is presence of many rules all MPs are required to respect.

 

Leaders are particularly linguistically skilled in addressing their people; presidents of America for example have been known to make use of political metaphors using their charismatic personality to win elections. Respectable descriptions of their country are also used. A study of the metaphorical personification of America in political discourse was conducted by Ida Vestermark. She explains how strategies of language use to influence receivers toward a desired thought/attitude are evident within the conceptualising of America as human. Such presidents, such as George W. Bush have presented the nation as a human and the world as a community within his presidential speeches- supporting the listener's visualisations whilst increasing political participation- even when negative!

A report from the Telegraph in 2008 explains that a dictionary has been constructed in order to unravel political speech- Jill Kirby, the director of CPS, said: "This Government has - whether willfully or unwittingly - blurred the line between words and actions."Talking about a problem has come to mean the same as doing something about it."

 

 Do we still understand our political representatives, and more importantly- do we trust them? How can we distinguish between what is the truth on matters when their conversational rules differ to the norm of language we live by?  MPs have made a desperate attempt to attract their voters and have even resorted to tweeting. An article by the Times in 2009 claims how the Labour Party has issued guidance to its MPs on how to tweet; there is even a website, Tweetminster! Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg and Alastair Campbell are all twitterers- perhaps in an attempt to contribute to politics without confrontation...

Leanne Carty