ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНО ОКРАШЕННЫЕ ГЛАГОЛЫ В РЕЧАХ БРИТАНСКИХ И АМЕРИКАНСКИХ ПОЛИТИКОВ

Language of politics is such a sphere where it is practically impossible to find the truth. Public speeches of politicians are generally well-planned and written beforehand so as to avoid awkward questions and dubious situations that can be caused by ill-considered words of a politician. Moreover, most political leaders use the service of professional speech writers, image makers and other counselors on all points of their political activity, thus it is not clear whether the politician is sincere in his speech or he just announces what has been prepared for him by speech consultants.

All public speeches are built according to the fundamental norms and rules of rhetoric which were invented and systematized by Aristotle and practiced by many outstanding orators of the past. Certainly, the speeches of an orator, which were written and given by him are unique, because they not only contain his own thoughts, but also express them in a way that is typical of this politician. So, the word choice as well as manner of speaking reveals the peculiarities of a politician as a language personality.

Nowadays, as we have already mentioned, practically all modern politicians use the assistance of speech writers; that is why, speeches of different politicians sometimes have certain resemblance. Even the images put into rhetorical figures look identical. Let us compare some quotations from the speeches of two different American politicians:

G. Bush’s inauguration speech: “…And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well; a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power. It burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world [7].”

A. Schwarzenegger’s speech: “…We are still the lamp lighting the world especially for those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they’re trapped they hear our call… they see our light … and they feel the pull of our freedom [6].”

As we have noticed, the metaphor of fire and light in connection with the notion of freedom presents in both extracts. Though metaphors are mostly considered to be original stylistic devices, and they are a norm of an oratorical speech, in this particular case they lack originality and look trite.

Studying speeches of various English speaking political leaders, we also noticed that in most cases we observe the political image, but it is difficult to identify the real personality of a politician through his speeches due to the reasons mentioned above. However, we decided to focus our attention on the expressive, emotionally coloured lexis the person uses in his speech.

Emotionally coloured words tend to reveal the speaker’s inner thoughts, show him in real light. Because when a person gets exited he is more likely to be fair through the loss of self-possession and control over his words. Of course, we understand that experienced politicians rarely lose self-control, and emotionally coloured speech may be only a part of the game called politics in which the politician like an actor plays his well-regulated role. Nevertheless, we chose the emotionally coloured verbs, appearing in the speeches of politicians as the subject of the present article.

First of all, it is necessary to mention, that some linguists deny the fact that verbs can acquire assessment, because the verb signifies action, and denotative meaning of the verb cannot be assessed. Only objects and subjects can be emotionally assessed. For instance, Y.S. Stepanov considered that “emotional assessment of an action relates, as a rule, to its subject or object [3, P.272]”. The same opinion shares E.M. Wolf, underlining that “an action, as it is, i.e. predicate indication, cannot be assessed by itself [2, P.141]”.

Still, Arlanova T.L., studying the axiological potential of the verb, suggests that “the performed action is assessed on the basis of its total indications. The action performed by a subject and directed at any definite or indefinite object, characterized by any other connections, i.e. locative, temporal, resultative, instrumentative, and others, is assessed by the verb [1, P.10]”.

We also agree that the action indirectly characterizes the subject or the object of an action and can be assessed in relation to the subject that performed it or the object it is directed at; because, as a result, the subject or the object of an action acquires the assessment. Moreover, the choice of emotionally coloured verbs indirectly characterizes the subject of assessment himself, i.e. the person who uses these verbs in his/her speech giving the assessment to any subject or object. Emotiveness is closely connected with the feelings the person experiences in the process of communication, especially when one gives the emotional assessment to the object or a problem that really concerns him/her.

As Arlanova T.L. marks, “emotive component of the word meaning reflects such kinds of feelings as sadness, fear, shame, pity, compassion, delight, admiration and so on [1, P.9]”.

Concerning political speeches, as it has been mentioned before, politicians are generally not inclined to express true feelings during their public performances; so, most of them tend to control not only their emotions but also their words, that is why they rarely use emotionally coloured lexis, and giving the assessment to political issues they usually use evaluative words of rational kind of assessment.

Here we should say that evaluative lexis used by a person can be subdivided into constantly used and rarely used words. The first whether emotionally or rationally coloured present practically in all speeches of an orator and form his/her speech image, becoming his/her public “identity card”. The second sound very expressive and appear spontaneously usually in unexpected situations or emotionally difficult conditions, for example, during the debates when an orator can lose self-control for a moment and say something unplanned. Such words are rare, but the most valued ones from the point of psycholinguistics; because, there is a chance of revealing the true personality of a speaker.

We analyzed a number of speeches of English speaking politicians: ex-Governor of California, A. Schwarzenegger and ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain, D. Cameron, on the subject of emotionally coloured verbs. The results of our research are given in the present article.

We noticed that political speeches of A. Schwarzenegger are rather emotional, and the verbs he uses express his axiological priorities. There are several verbs of rational assessment, such as (to believe, to achieve, to struggle, to fight, to defeat) which are not unique and constantly used not only in his speeches, but in speeches of any English speaking person. There are also a number of words that became his “identity card”, for instance, the verb to terminate.

to terminate – fml. to come or bring to an end [5].

“…we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism … [6]”.

“In the speech of Schwarzenegger the verb “to terminate” sounds especially expressive because it acquires additional connotation which appeared due to the association with the film “The Terminator”, not without the assistance of which the actor-politician created himself the image of a strong, invincible hero [4, P.111]”.

There are some verbs that belong to the sports slang (to fumble), verbs which are figuratively used, such as (to flinch, to fiddle, to waive). Most of them have negative assessment. If we compare the dictionary definitions, we will notice that all these verbs have a negative evaluative component.

to fumble – sport. to drop the ball after having taken hold of it/ to spoil or not succeed at by mishandling [5].

to flinch – to move back when shocked by pain, or in fear of something unpleasant [5].

to fiddle – infml. to move things aimlessly in one’s fingers/ BrE to gain dishonestly [5].

to waive – fml. or tech. to state officially that (a right, rule, etc.) is no longer in effect [5].

Let us see how A. Schwarzenegger characterizes G. Bush: “He is a leader who doesn’t flinch, doesn’t waiver, doesn’t back down [6]”, and expresses his evaluative opinion concerning politicians in general: “…The people of California are doing their job, but the politicians are fiddling, fumbling and failing [Running Man. The Economist, Aug. 9^th, 2003, P.39]”.

Thus, A. Schwarzenegger despises weakness in politics including such human qualities as dishonesty, cowardice and indecisiveness. His negative attitude to people, having these traits is reflected in the emotionally coloured verbs with negative assessment, which he uses in his speeches, indirectly characterizing himself. Because if he criticizes the qualities mentioned above, these verbs imply, that Schwarzenegger, on the contrary, is a strong, brave, and honest man, ex-sportsman; and that is proved through the use of sports slang in his speeches.

In speeches of British ex-Prime Minister David Cameron we found a row of emotionally coloured verbs with the similar meaning as in Schwarzenegger’s speeches, but expressed differently. Moreover, Cameron sometimes also uses slang words, verbs of rational assessment (to confront, to reinforce, to rebuild). There is a verb to tackle, his favorite one, which he uses figuratively and repeats several times in different speeches.

to tackle – to take action in order to deal with/ (in football or hockey) to try to take the ball away, from an opponent/ to speak to directly and fearlessly so as to deal with a problem [5].

“...Yes, of course we must tackle them. Of course we must tackle poverty [8]”.

The verb “to tackle” sounds energetic. Evidently, Cameron likes this word, because it adds necessary decisiveness to his political image, as well as the verbs  to boost and to shake up, which are also emotionally coloured.

to boost – to increase; raise/ to promote [5].

to shake up – infml. to make big changes in (an organization), esp. so as to make it more effective [5].

 “It is a plan to boost science, skills… So it is time to shake things up [9]”.

With the help of informal lexis of positive assessment, as well as energetic and optimistic context, British Prime Minister tried to correspond to the image of a strong political leader. Emotionally coloured verbs with negative assessment, appearing in his speeches, still, indirectly spoil his image of a strong leader. We found three emotionally coloured synonyms to the verb “to avoid” in his speeches, which produce dubious impression on the recipient:

to bottle out – BrE sl. to refuse to do something because one is afraid [5].

to duck – infml. to try to avoid (a difficulty or unpleasant duty) [5].

to shirk – derog. to avoid (unpleasant work or responsibilities) because of laziness, lack of determination, etc. [5].

“an ellection bottled and a referendum denied [10]”.

“The big society spirit means facing up to this generation’s debts, not shirking responsibility [10]”.

“I’ve seen what happens when you win and you waste your mandate … as if it’s new general election, ducking the difficult things … [9]”.

All these verbs signify political weakness and can be attached to the thematic group “cowardice”. In the dictionary they are followed by marks sl., infml., derog., which prove their evaluative status.

Concerning the verb “to bottle” it is necessary to mention that some alert journalist, ironically commenting on D. Cameron’s speech, continued “the topic of liquids” with the words: “ ‘spendaholic’ years” and “his 64-minute sober oration”. So, the image of British Prime Minister acquired additional negative colour. No matter how he tried, David Cameron, having made some fatal political mistakes, proved to be a weak politician. It turned out that the traits he so emotionally denies are his own distinctive features.

Summing up the results of present research, we should say that possibilities of evaluative lexis are immense. Having analyzed only one aspect, the emotionally coloured verbs in connection with the political image, we came to the conclusion that verbs with negative assessment not only predominate in the language of politics, but they also exert considerable influence on the perception of the reality by members of the lingual society. Moreover, figuratively speaking, emotionally coloured lexis is a double-edged weapon, directed at the object of assessment and the orator himself at the same time.