ФУНКЦИЯ ЭПИТЕТОВ В АМЕРИКАНСКОМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОМ ДИСКУРСЕ

Language and power are always interconnected. And in modern society they have become inseparable. People rule and are ruled with the help of the language. Under the influence of words people make decisions and change their minds, start and avert wars. The language of politics has its own peculiarities. In political discourse, as many investigators mark, values prevail over the facts; the assessment and influence dominate over the information as well as the emotional prevails over the rational (Edelman M., 1964; ShakhovskiyV.I., 1998; Sheygal E.I., 2000).

E.I.Sheygal states that “political language is mainly incentive, aimed to influence, stimulate and inspirit the addressee” [2, P. 46].

Contemporary scientists reveal several functions of language: the communicative, the inspirative, the phatic, the emotive/expressive, and the regulative. All of them are represented in political discourse. But, the regulative function is considered to be the most important function. Because it meets the main aim of political discourse, that is to manipulate the public consciousness.

Ideologically loaded words, axiological lexis and political clichés assist to accomplish the language manipulation. The subject of the present article is epithet. So, our task is to study the axiological peculiarities of epithets appearing and functioning in the language of politics.

Since epithets are widely used in political discourse, they serve not only as a powerful means of assessment  but they also perform the regulative function, imposing on the recipient the ideological and axiological views of the addresser concerning the object of assessment, and ultimately, making him change his mind in favour of the manipulator.

A number of attributive words and evaluative word combinations, appearing frequently in political discourse, entered the list of political epithets and pejorative political slogans (http://www.academickids.com), which comprises about 140 language units. Structurally, most political epithets are simple or compound. Phrase or sentence epithets are rarely used in political discourse.

It is necessary to mention that most attributive words marked as political epithets have negative connotation of various degree of pejorativity from slightly ironic to derogatory and, sometimes, even obscene. Moreover, some epithets that are considered to be antonyms both have negative connotation. For example:

Hawkish - Term used for those who favour the resolution of political problems through war, rather than through negotiation or appeasement.

Dovish - Term used to describe people who favour negotiation or appeasement as the solution to political problems rather than war (http://www.academickids.com).

In political context if the first is interpreted as intolerant and aggressive (that means bad), the second is perceived as an indecisive coward (that is also bad).

In politics cowardice is considered to be one of the most terrible “sins”. And weak indecisive politicians are ridiculed and endowed with various offensive epithets. Especially pacifists are in disgrace. For example:

Peacenik - Originating in the U.S. it is applied to advocates of U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War, to pacifists in general, and later to advocates of Western rapprochement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, for instance through arms control. (http://www.academickids.com).

Another evaluative word combination with negative connotation first appeared in public speech of A. Schwarzenegger in 2004, but due to its expressiveness, it became rather popular, and even entered the list of political epithets.

Girlie men – U.S.: Term used by California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger to describe his political opponents as "Economic Girlie Men." This term was first popularized by faux bodybuilders Hans & Franz on Saturday Night Live (http://www.academickids.com).

… I say: “Don’t be economic girlie men!” The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world (Ugrad-ua05 Schwarz’s speech.htm Aug. 31, 2004).

Regarding the structure of the epithets “peacenik” and “girlie men”, both words are formed according to the rules of evaluative word building. That is a suffix is added to the basic noun to create a new expressive unit. Due to diminutive suffix –ie (in the word girlie + men) and suffix –nik which is not typical of English language (peacenik) the epithets gain negative connotation, figuratively presenting weak sides of the object of assessment.  

Studying the list of political epithets we noticed that a number of language units contain the word “neo”. It is the variant of the adjective “new”. But if the word new usually has positive connotation, neo implies the recovery of the old and not very good experience.

Neo – Something new about something old; a revival or a new variant of an older ideology [3, p.374].

The second part of such word combinations is always the name of a political trend.

Neo-confederate - U.S.: Sometimes used as a disparaging term for persons who look favorably upon the American South or southern culture. Accurately used for groups and persons that advocate certain positions associated with the Confederate States of America  (http://www.academickids.com).

Neoliberal, Neoliberalism - These terms are used pejoratively referring to neoliberal economics or those who advocate it, when used by those who oppose it.  However, some political commentators use the term "neoliberal" to refer to a person — usually a political figure — who takes a liberal position on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights) but agrees with the conservatives on economic issues (such as taxation). It is not intended as an insult when used in this context. (http://www.academickids.com).

Many linguists agree that “sometimes it is difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between epithet and logical attribute” [1, P.158].

Concerning political epithets, we have noticed that in most cases, while characterizing a political figure from the positive side, the journalists, in order to look objective and impartial, often use trite epithets devoid of emotional colour which are seen more like logical attributes. Still, a certain degree of evaluation is present in such word combinations. For example: a pragmatic New Democrat, a liberal north-easterner (The Economist, June 28th, 2003, p.58); a religious conservative, a conservative Republican (The Economist, July 22nd, 2006, p.51).

Sometimes they add emotional colour to produce positive effect: a charismatic black man (The Economist, February 9th, 2008, p.23); the straight-talking Republican (The Economist, June 28th, 2003, p.58).

When the object of assessment should look in unfavourable light, they usually use evaluative word combinations with negative connotation, sometimes ironic tone and very expressive, contextually conditioned epithets. For example: a disgraced Republican lobbyist, an undistinguished state senator (The Economist, July 22nd, 2006, p.51); blow-dried mediocrity, vulnerable Democrats (The Economist, June 28th, 2003, p.58).

Metaphorical epithets with the ironic connotation also produce negative effect. For example: a golden boy of the religious right, the right hand of God (The Economist, July 22nd, 2006, p.51); hard-core Democrats (The Economist, June 28th, 2003, p.58).

The tendency to use epithets as means of assessment prevails in the American political discourse. The emerging of the term “political epithet” proves that this notion evolves and attracts the attention of modern linguists. Due to their axiological possibilities and connotative peculiarities epithets effectively perform the regulative function of political language. Some bright epithets have become a part of the political vocabulary that can be found in special dictionaries of political lexis (girlie men, yellow dog Democrat, cheese-eating surrender monkeys). Most political epithets, appearing in a certain historical period, are associated with the politics of the government and political leaders of that time (Iron Lady, Voodoo Economics). Evaluative word combinations in historical context speak volumes about the views of their contemporaries. Political epithets also reflect the values of the society and the attitudes of people towards the political and social events.