Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:4 (2023) ► pp.593–610

Novel veiling and concealing euphemisms in political discourse

A relevance-theoretic perspective

ORCID logo | Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University named after R.E. Alekseev
This qualitative research explores the differences in the interpretation of novel veiling and concealing euphemisms from a relevance-theoretic perspective. I argue that the relevance of an utterance containing a novel veiling euphemism is established (1) via the adjustment of its linguistically encoded meaning so that it communicates the meaning encoded by a dispreferred expression, which is derived as an explicature, or (2) via its linguistically encoded meaning, derived as an explicature, and the meaning encoded by a dispreferred expression, recovered as a strong implicature. The relevance of an utterance containing a novel concealing euphemism is established via its linguistically encoded meaning, recovered as an explicature, and via weak implicatures. The recovery of weakly implicit content is not essential for inferring the speaker’s meaning.
Keywords: political discourse, strategic use of language, novel veiling euphemisms, novel concealing euphemisms, relevance theory, explicature, implicature
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Encoding and relevance
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Novel veiling euphemisms
    • 4.2Novel concealing euphemisms
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
  • Sources
Published online: 21 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21097.gol
References (25)
References
Abrantes, Ana Margarida. 2005. “Euphemism and Co-operation in Discourse.” In Power without Domination, Dialogism and the Empowering Property of Communication, ed. by Eric Grillo, 85–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith. 2018. “Getting a Grip on Context as a Determinant of Meaning.” In Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy. Part 1. From Theory to Practice, ed. by Alessandro Capone, Marco Carapezza, and Franco Lo Piparo, 177–201. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2012. “Euphemism and Language Change: the Sixth and Seventh Ages.” Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology 71: 65–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casas Gómez, Miguel. 2009. “Towards a New Approach to the Linguistic Definition of Euphemism.” Language Sciences 311: 725–739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamizo Domínguez, Pedro José. 2009. “Linguistic Interdiction: Its Status, Questions and Possible Future Research Lines.” Language Sciences 311: 428–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felt, Christian, and Ellen Riloff. 2020. “Recognizing Euphemisms and Dysphemisms Using Sentiment Analysis.” Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, ed. by Beata Beigman Klebanov et al., 136–145. Stroudsburg, Pa.: The Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halmari, Helena. 2011. “Political Correctness, Euphemism and Language Change. The Case of ‘People First’.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 828–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2002. “The Intuitive Basis of Implicature: Relevance Theoretic Implicitness versus Gricean Implying.” Pragmatics 12(2):117–134.Google Scholar
Hughes, Geoffrey. 2010. Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Luchtenberg, Sigrid. 1985. Euphemismen im heutigen Deutsch. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lutz, William. 1989. Doublespeak: from ‘‘Revenue Enhancement’’ to ‘‘Terminal Living’’: How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. 1946. “Politics and the English Language.” Horizon 13 (76): 252–265.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 441: 117–149.Google Scholar
Sytnyk, Andriy. 2014. Argumentative Euphemisms, Political Correctness and Relevance. Ph. D. Thesis. Neuchâtel: University of Neuchâtel.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 1281: 195–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–633. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Sources
Interview with Ben Shapiro of the Ben Shapiro Show. 2 May 2019. Retrieved from [URL]
Interview with John Dickerson of CBS Face the Nation. 4 November 2018. Retrieved from [URL]
Pompeo, Michael. 2019. A Force for good: America reinvigorated in the Middle East. Retrieved from [URL]
. 2018. The US-Saudi partnership is vital. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from [URL]
President Barack Obama’s Full Interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd. 7 September 2014. Retrieved from [URL]
Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo with Mark Reardon of the Mark Reardon Show. 1 November 2018. Retrieved from [URL]