Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Euphemism in Tony Blair’s Political Discourse in the Iraqi war 2003: A Sociocognitive CDA Account
Mohamed Abidi
University of Tunis, Tunisia
Abstract
As a rhetorical device, euphemism holds a staple focus in political discourse. It can be deployed
as an asset to justify a given contentious venture, such as initiating an assault on another
country. It is against this background that the present study sets out to probe into the way the
former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, adduced his arguments to justify the controversial
military actions in Iraq 2003. Specifically, drawing upon a socio-cognitive CDA framework, this
paper investigated the euphemistic constructions that featured Blair’s political discourse. The
critical scrutiny of this rhetorical strategy revealed that, along with being a function of social
cognition, its use was constrained and organized by the epistemic Knowledge device (K-device)
of Blair’ context model. The analysis also concluded that Tony Blair opted for euphemism, as a
source of transgression, to legitimize his political actions and sustain his ideological or
hegemonic ends.
Keywords: euphemism, CDA, transgression, manipulation, K-device, hegemony
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 8
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Introduction
Rhetorical devices including euphemism have been given a staple focus and heed in political
discourse (van Dijk, 2006a). Such attention is motivated by politicians’ proclivity to manipulate
the import of political discourse, which may allow them to achieve their political and ideological
effects, i.e., the construction of preferred mental models (van Dijk, 2006b), acquiescence of their
ideologies (van Dijk, 1993a,), and sustaining of unequal power relationship (Fairclough, 1989).
Therefore, the core objective of the present study is to probe into the rhetorical device of
euphemism in the political discourse of the former British Prime Minister (PM), Tony Blair, as a
source of norms transgression during the outbreak of the second Gulf war on Iraq. The focus is
specifically pegged to the methods of euphemistic constructions proposed by Warren (1992) so as
to identify the most constructions used and disentangle the ideologies disguised therein. To this
end, the socio-cognitive framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA) is used by virtue of the
fact that it is multidimensional subsuming social, cognitive, and discursive-semiotic phenomena
(van Dijk, 2006b). Besides, it lends itself well to the critical goals of this study in that it goes
beyond description to illuminate the mental processes and ideologies which underlie text
production and text comprehension.
The present paper falls into four sections. The first section presents the theoretical
background of this study. It unfolds with the introduction of critical discourse analysis showing
its major notions and concepts. Then, it outlines the relationship between CDA and ideology.
Finally, it introduces the rhetorical strategy of euphemism. The second section briefly outlines the
targeted corpus and the methodology used to explore and probe into euphemization. The third
section is devoted to the quantitative and qualitative scrutiny of the results obtained. The last
section puts forward discussion and conclusions alongside suggestion for future work.
Theoretical background
Critical Discourse Analysis
CDA is a relatively new interdisciplinary analytic approach that refers to the use of a myriad
of linguistic tools for the sake of uncovering the opacities in discourse which contribute to the
exercise, maintenance, and reproduction of unequal power relations (Fairclough & Wodak,
1997). CDA is hence distinctive in the sense that it aims at achieving social justice through
revealing the way language is deployed, manipulated, and abused in the exertion of power
(Widdowson, 1998). CDA is a highly integrated approach, for it blends different yet intertwined
levels of analysis. To wit, within CDA grid, the exploration of the ideological nature of
euphemism implies that discursive products (texts), discursive practices and social context as
well as social cognition should be examined in an interconnected way. Such a mutual analysis
can end up with the achievement of critical awareness by illuminating the mechanisms deployed
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 9
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
to manipulate recipients’ models, and demystifying politicians’ discourses by deciphering their
manifest and latent ideologies (Weiss & Wodak, 2003).
Power and access
The notion of power in CDA, particularly institutional social power which refers to the
oblique control of actors over the actions of the others, is relevant (Barnett & Duvall, 2005).
Institutional social power is not contingent upon coercion, but rather purely mental and
hegemonic (van Dijk, 1997a: 17; author’s italics). It can be reproduced and legitimized at the
ideological level. That is, by controlling their attitudes and ideologies, people will be monitored
to the extent that they will behave out of their own “free will” and in tune with the interests of
power-holders (Delinger, 1995: 41).
The discourse reproduction of hegemonic power and dominance presupposes the existence of
a central aspect of the connection between discourse and power, namely access (van Dijk, 1997a)
or control over public discourse. Seen from this perspective, the control of access, which is
unequally disseminated among people, can be regarded as a decisive criterion against which
power of the dominant groups is measured (van Dijk, 1993b). In other words, access to more
patterns and strategies or resources, be it symbolic or material such as knowledge, beliefs, topics,
referents of discourse, i.e., who is spoken or written about, media, and indeed text and talk may
amount to more social power and dominance (van Dijk, 1996: 96; italics added).
Access to resources, be it limited or unlimited, can hence provide politicians with better
opportunity to influence and manipulate the public mind through calculating the use of discourse
strategies in accordance with their interests in political struggles (Jäger, 2001). It is noteworthy
that in order to control people’s minds effectively, politicians need to monitor not only the
diverse patterns and resources of access but also importantly context.
Context control
Van Dijk (1998a: 5) argues that “context is defined as (the mentally represented) structure of
those properties of the social situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of
discourse.” Therefore, people in position of power may hold control over context through the
control of some of its structural categories amid the nature of the communicative event or
situation and its setting (van Dijk, 1997a). Likewise, power-holders may monitor the context by
deciding which participants may or must be included, and in which roles, and which beliefs and
knowledge they may hold, and more importantly which relevant information to be articulated in
discourse (van Dijk, 1998a).
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 10
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Operating within a CDA grid, the focus of this study is on the set of euphemistic strategies
and categories managed and used as a tool to monitor public discourse and exercise social and
political power. Such a focus is grounded on the assumption that discursive structures of
euphemism represent a source of transgression as well as a real mechanism of the emblematic
reproduction and concealment of power abuse or dominance (van Dijk, 1998b). The emphasis is
also motivated by the fact that these devices can be used to reinforce the polarization of “us” and
“them” that features the socially shared representations and their ideologies (van Dijk, 1998a).
CDA and ideology
Investigating euphemization in political discourse is motivated by the need to probe into the
way ideology works. Political discourse practices, being a complex class of genre (Triki &
Baklouti, 2002), are argued to be ideologically laden (van Dijk, 2001). Ideology has been defined
as a set of beliefs and principles that underpin the construction of reality (Fairclough, 1992a,
Simpson, 1993). It is used as a powerful mechanism to achieve hegemonic ends amid the
“production, reproduction or transformation of relation of domination” (Fairclough, 1992a: 87).
Relevant, however, to this study is van Dijk’s definition of ideology which is at variance
with classical and some contemporary approaches to ideology (Eagleton, 1991; Thompson,
1990). Ideology, as van Dijk (1993a) argues, is the basic framework that shapes the social
cognition shared by members of the group and institutions. Of vital importance are the cognitive
and the social dimensions of ideology. Indeed, they “function as the ‘interface’ between the
cognitive representations and processes underlying discourse and action on the one hand, and the
social position and interests of social groups, on the other hand” (van Dijk, 1995a: 18).
Put differently, ideology can monitor the social attitudes and influence its consumers in such
a way that their discourse will be ideological. Such an impact can manifest at all levels of
discourse including syntax, lexical, style, and more importantly rhetoric (van Dijk, 2006b). At the
social level, it can influence the social interaction and activities of social groups through the
manipulation of their mental models. Operating within a critical analytical framework, the current
study will highlight in its ideological analysis the preferential or selective discourse structures
and properties that reflect ideological manipulation whose aim is to warrant action of power
abuse.
The pursuit of such a business is likely to be sustained by the properties of ideology, namely,
socio-cognitive and cognitive properties. Ideology inherently embraces socio-cognitive and
cognitive properties (van Dijk, 2000). The socio-cognitive aspects comprise socially shared
beliefs that are connected to the characteristic properties of a given group including their identity,
their position in society, their concerns and aims, their relations to the other groups, and their
natural environment, among many more (Edwards, 2006). These various beliefs are in turn
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 11
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
associated with different systems of cognition, namely, short-term memory (STM) and long-term
memory (LTM).
STM represents the locus or repository for more personal beliefs about individual
experiences (van Dijk, 2000). These beliefs determine episodic memory (van Dijk, 2000) where
information processing, such as monitoring of talk-in-interaction, text and talk understanding,
and production, takes place (van Dijk, 1997b). Considering the goals of this study and the
political background, attempts will be made to show not only how these personal experiences are
represented in political actors’ minds but also how they are strategically exploited by Tony Blair
to process the social situation in a bid of producing a cognitive effect on the socially shared
representations.
LTM is basically about the socially shared beliefs of which the most salient component is
socio-cultural knowledge (van Dijk, 2006b). These socially shared beliefs and knowledge
constitute the crucial system of mental representation in social memory (van Dijk, 2000). They
not only connect between the social system and the personal cognitive system, but further
underlie the “translation, homogenization and co-ordination between external requirements and
subjective experience (Meyer, 2001: 21). Particularly worthy of signaling is that the fact of
categorizing knowledge as a socio-cultural common ground, i.e., shared by nearly all members of
the community can account for the use of euphemism in political discourse. Further, being the
basic framework of ideology, these controlled features may give rise to new opinions and
attitudes about the other and implicitly result in their potential appropriation. Seen from this
vantage point, the present study will endeavor to unfold how ideology contributes to the
inculcation of negative attitudes related to Iraq.
The cognitive properties of ideology concern the context model alongside its categories
which govern the processes of discourse production and reception. Context model is seen as a
pivotal construct in contemporary pragmatic theories (Sperber & Wilson, 1995) and cognitive
discourse analysis frameworks (van Dijk, 2001). It refers to the “subjective participants’
constructs of communicative situations” or events that are organized and represented in context
or mental models in episodic memory (van Dijk, 2006a: 1). Context models are, as argued by the
cognitive psychologist, Johnson-Laird (1983), the cognitive interface in discourse-situation
relationship. They can account for a variety of cognitive operations as to how participants
understand and represent the social situations that impact on discourse structures (Johnson-Laird
& Garnham, 1989).
Typically relevant in context models is their being sketchy and lopsided or prejudiced (van
Dijk, 2006a). They are also featured by their dynamic and changing nature in that they are
“dynamically construed (and updated) during interaction” (van Dijk, 2005a: 4). This contextual
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 12
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
character should be regarded as an advantage by virtue of the fact that it allows the flexible
control of many aspects of discourse production and reception process (van Dijk, 2005b). Such
strategic control of discourse properties is made possible through an epistemic device called
knowledge device or K-device (van Dijk, 2003), whose core goal is to adapt and handle discourse
production and processing. This cognitive device is purported to hold a pragmatic function on
account of its strategic control and management of information in talk-in-interaction (van Dijk,
2005a). Put simply, based on the structural constraints of the current context, including the
setting, event type, goals, actions, discourse partakers, their roles and their knowledge, (the Kdevice will keep track of the information in the event model as the basis of the discourse content
or meaning. More importantly, it will determine and govern the way discourse content is variably
articulated and appropriately couched in political discourse structures amid rhetoric (van Dijk,
1997b). In the following, the rhetorical device of euphemism is introduced.
Euphemism
Being a rhetorical strategy, euphemism is profusely used in political discourse to obliquely
materialize ideological manipulation (Blackledge, 2006; Mihas, 2005). Euphemism is basically
grounded on minimizing a negative property or purposefully switching the means or names by
which it is couched, creating thereby disguised yet desirable connotative meanings (Lutz, 1989).
A case in point, the usurpation of Iraq masquerades as liberation. The change in name, aside from
conferring new properties upon the denotate, mirrors power holders’ propensity to shroud the
sheer essence of the message so as to make it palatable to the public taste (Mihas, 2005).
That being said, name or concept substitution is a quintessential feature of political discourse
by virtue of its key role in swaying and creating perception of reality and governing recipients’
actions (Mral, 2006). Politicians may have recourse to this linguistic practice for
recontextualization purposes (Blackledge, 2006), however. In other words, they can, for instance,
afford social actors new nominations or properties, which may culminate in the reproduction of
prejudiced representations and their naturalization as common sense or common knowledge
(Fairclough, 1989). Seen from this vantage point, euphemization may be deemed a type of
deceptive communication where lies for political advantage can show up (Galasinski, 2000).
Considering euphemization a sort of deceptive communication equates it with the practice of
doublespeak or doubletalk. Such a practice, according to Lutz (1989) and Fernandez (2006),
refers to the language that is willfully manipulated and constructed to make the illogical seem
logical, the unspeakable sound speakable, and the blamed look blameless. Central to doublespeak
practice is the notion of incongruity. This concept stands for the mismatch between what is said
or left unsaid and what really is; between the fundamental function of language and what
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 13
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
doubletalk does, that is, misleading, deception, evasion, and obfuscation (Bhatia, 2006; Ham,
2005).
Against this background, euphemism, seen as a doublespeak practice, can be drawn upon by
power holders to fulfill political and ideological ends. Fairclough (1989), in this respect, asserts
that euphemism can be used as a strategy of avoidance, allowing thereby the speaker to shun any
communicative discomfort by veiling the essence of the matter. Implicit in this is that
euphemization can do face work. Put differently, it can mitigate face-threatening acts for both the
speaker and the recipient along with smoothly passing on the speaker’s ideology. Another
application of euphemism is to promote and talk indirectly about things whose explicit
description is deemed inappropriate, which will allow political actors to manage the impression
of their audience (van Dijk, 2004).
Data and methodology
The corpus of the present study originates from statements on the Anglo-American military
action in Iraq issued by the former British PM, Tony Blair, during the outbreak of the Second
Gulf War on Iraq. These statements, which comprised transcripts of interviews, press
conferences, speeches, and statements to the parliament, have been downloaded from the
Internet. The overall corpus totaled 18 statements of 17,216 words, and it was reduced to only 8
after applying a stratified random sampling. Such statements were delivered from the inception of
the military action in 2003. In terms of length, the statements were of uneven length, ranging
from 920 to 3.996 words.
Given the present study is concerned with the disclosure of the way Tony Blair crafts his
manipulation by the use of euphemization as a source of transgression to achieve political and
ideological goals, the socio-cognitive model of CDA is opted for. Such a paradigm can
adequately describe and elucidate the role political discourse plays in the political process
through the focus on the socio-cognitive interface which interactively relates discourse to the
socially shared political representations and cognitive models that monitor political action and
systems (van Dijk, 1997b). The critical momentum of this framework lies in (i) its being open to
accommodate a variety of theoretical approaches amid critical linguistics, pragmatics, and
cognitive linguistics which can enrich its dissecting tools and (ii) its analytical advantage in
minimizing the risk of bias. Put shortly, it can allow a multilayered scrutiny of discourse
manipulation, employing an analysis at one level so as to illuminate another.
The adopted framework of analysis can be represented diagrammatically in Figure 2 below
where the shaded area, i.e., discourse meaning or structure, represents the output of the effective
ideological interaction between social structure and social cognition. The double-headed arrows
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 14
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
signify that the dialectical relationship between discourse meaning and social structure is
mediated by social cognition.
Social cognition
Discourse structure
Social structure
Figure 1. Discourse-cognition-society triangle (adapted from Van Dijk, 1993b, 2001, 2004)
As suggested in Figure 2 above, to get a fully-fledged analysis of the link between discourse
meaning and social structure, social cognition should be considered. Social cognition, as van Dijk
(1993b, 2004, 2006a) argues, features the set of socially shared representations, attitudes,
ideologies, and cognitive models that underpin the production and interpretation processes of text
and talk.
Discourse structure, being controlled by ideologically-based models, can target the
enactment of the underlying ideologies, on the one hand, and act as a tool of manipulation, i.e., as
a strategic asset to influence the construction of preferred mental models, on the other hand (van
Dijk, 1995b). Hence, the focus at this level of analysis was on those discursive properties that
suggest potential purposive manipulation of the social structure. The targeted analytical
categories subsume the rhetorical device of euphemism. The aim of this analytical focus is thus to
prize out the different constructions of euphemism so as to be accounted for by the theory of the
cognitive models and construe their impact on the production and reception processes. To this
effect, a modified version of Warren’s (1992) model was adopted, as illustrated in the following
figure.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 15
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Figure 2. Modified version of Warren’s (1992) model for the analysis of the euphemistic
constructions
As Figure 3 above illustrates, two ways in which euphemisms may be constructed were used
for the classification of euphemistic structures in this study: word formation devices which are
included under the rubric of formal innovation and semantic innovation. These methods of
formation subsume different linguistic levels each. As regards word formation devices, the focus
was only on two ways used for forming euphemisms. Compounding which refers to the
combining of two individually innocuous words to form a euphemism for an otherwise perverse
term. A case in point, “regime change” and “liberation of Iraq” were deployed by the ex-British
Prime Minister to euphemize instances of illegal invasion or occupation. Acronyms stand for the
mingling of the initial sounds of more than one word to form a new concept.
Within the semantic innovation, care was given to circumlocution, reversal, and
understatement. As the name implies, circumlocution stands for talking indirectly about
something, usually by supplying a descriptive expression in place of a name. The example of “the
elimination of the weapons of mass destruction” which was stated by Tony Blair to euphemize
usurpation falls into this category. With respect to reversal, it means irony which enables the
reference to something bad by using opposites. As an example of expressions instantiated under
this rubric was “moment of liberation” which disguised moments of bitterness and occupation in
view of the war aftermath. Understatement was tackled by focusing on expressions meant to
soften harsh realities or acts, such as “remove” and “liberate” which both of them imply the use
of undesirable actions.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 16
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Being a fundamental property of the social cognition structure, context models are argued to
play a key role in discourse production and reception out of their control of the various levels of
discourse structure (van Dijk, 1997d). Hence, there is a need to examine the contextualization of
the different euphemistic constructions in Blair’s discourse. Central to context models is the
prominent role of the knowledge device or K-device (van Dijk, 2003, 2005b). Indeed, such a
device helps discourse producers determine what to express as appropriate and politically
propitious and what to leave as implicit and presupposed (van Dijk, 2004). Therefore, the aim, at
this level of dissection, was to show how Blair manages participants’ knowledge through his Kdevice.
Social structure, being the by-product of the interplay of social cognition and discourse
structure, was scrutinized to delve into the (re)production of social inequality and the hegemonic
effects. Further, the political and ideological implications of Blair’s ideologically-based discourse
were investigated. Put differently, Blair’s manipulative euphemistic strategies were probed into to
unveil its contributions in the (re)production and naturalization of the political and ideological
practices. To achieve this end, context parameters such as institutional power, access to discourse
resources, control over access, and dominance were drawn upon.
Of vital importance, however, in the analysis of the impact of discourse on social structure is
social cognition and in particular cognitive models which “embody instantiation of social
knowledge and attitudes” as well as ideology constraining the interpretation process (van Dijk,
1993b:111). Hence, the emphasis was on how Blair’s discourse manages to monitor and shape
the cognitive processes of discourse participants. That is, how the British PM strategically
controls the formation, activation and updating of participants mental models (van Dijk, 2005a).
Results
Euphemistic constructions or expressions seemed to abound in Tony Blair’s political
discourse relating to issues raised in the outbreak of the second Gulf war on Iraq. Indeed, out of a
total of 18 statements, 48 euphemistic constructions were prized out. The linguistic realizations of
euphemisms were asymmetrically distributed as far as the modified version of Warren’s (1992)
model is concerned. Such euphemisms were presented in quantitative terms in Table 1 below in
the word formation and semantic levels.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 17
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table1. Distribution of the euphemistic constructions based on their
corresponding methods
Word formation
Frequency
Semantic devices
Frequency
devices
%
%
Compounding
12
Circumlocution
8
Acronym
1
Reversal
5
Understatement
23
As can be seen in Table 1, there was a clear discrepancy in euphemistic realizations. The
quantitative analysis showed that euphemism was mainly realized as semantic devices, with 36
occurrences. So pervasive among these was understatement (23 occurrences), followed by
circumlocution and its eight tokens, such as the liberation of the Iraqi people and the liberation of
Iraq from Saddam. Reversal trailed behind, showing just five occurrences amid they are doing a
superb job and removing Saddam will also be a blessing for all the Iraqi people, which has a
metaphorical origin. Relevant within the euphemistic understatement was that 16 out of the 23
tokens referred to conflict which has been resorted to by Tony Blair to substitute the expression
war.
As regards word formation devices, there were two methods used to construct euphemism. These
were compounding and acronym. What was noticeable in these formation devices was that
compounding was, by far, the most frequent mechanism in the formation of euphemisms for
questions related to the Iraqi war, with 12 cases detected. Indeed, the imposed interim
government was substituted by post-conflict administration (four occurrences), war was
euphemized as peace-keeping (one occurrence), and British soldiers were replaced by British
servicemen (one token), for instance. The mechanism of acronym was the least frequent, being
realized by means of only one expression referring to the Weapon of Mass Destruction. What
transpired from these data was that euphemism tended to constitute a potent source of
transgression when tackling politically-loaded topics. Such a transgression by the former British
PM was no more than a by-product of a cognitive makeup (Ariel, 2008) meant to create
hegemonic effects. In the following, a contextual analysis, rooted in the theory of cognitive
models, of the conscious use of euphemism by Tony Blair is presented.
As suggested earlier, euphemistic constructions in Tony Blair’s political discourse were
persuasively selected as a function of both his context models and his definition of the current
political situation in Iraq, UK, and the world. Put differently, being ideologically based, Blair’s
context model endeavored to control the understanding of discourse by adapting the articulation
of the semantic mental models -including content, information, ideology, attitudes, norms and
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 18
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
values, etc- to the ongoing communicative situation. This contextual control over discourse was
also fostered by such components of context models as setting, participants, action, intention, and
shared knowledge. Considering the present study, setting category embraced the war time which
was 2003, local and abroad TV viewers, British troops, MPs, Iraqi people and of course Tony
Blair as the dominant participant; action referred to the political speeches; intention concerned
Tony Blair’s attempt to persuade his audience of the righteousness of the war and shared
knowledge entails British foreign policy, war in Iraq, alleged WMD, among others. Contextually
relevant here was the role of the epistemic cognitive device in monitoring the use of the different
euphemistic constructions and their functions.
Knowing that there was a large-scale objection to the war on Iraq, Tony Blair opted for
euphemizing war as a conflict (16 occurrences), an action (three tokens) a job (one occurrence) a
battle (two occurrences). Such euphemization was a function of the K-device which elected to
transgress the cultural and political norms by using such understatements instead of war to
achieve persuasive ends. Indeed, these euphemistic understatements could have a somewhat
positive effect on the psyche of the audience, for the dreadful connotations of war and its
tragedies would be lessened or concealed and the seriousness of the situation would be
minimized. Further, the circumlocution device was constrained by the K-device, so that the
invasion of Iraq was branded liberation of the Iraqi people, liberation from Saddam or liberation.
The use of these circumlocutions, aside from possibly obfuscating the legal boundary to warrant
the illegitimate war, might trigger a host of cognitive representations and evoke some
fundamental values and ideologies for the audience, such as the importance of liberty and rule of
democracy. The outcome of such a cognitive framing could be a positive opinion and thereby
support of the current war.
Blair’s discourse was marked by the euphemistic portrayal of removing the Iraqi leader as a
kind of blessing through the use of the strategy of reversal. Such a strategy palpably reflected that
the former British PM, through his K-device, extracted from the socio-cultural knowledge of the
participants some religious beliefs and adapted them to the present political situation. The
implication of this was twofold. First, the Iraqi people were led by a chairman who was devoid of
morality. Second, it was the religious duty that underlied Britain’s engagement in this war, that is,
Britain undertook to help the Iraqi people savor and practice their freedoms. This pragmatic
function was buttressed by the other euphemistic reversals which could be classified under the
rubric of security and liberation. Regarding the euphemistic construction of compounding, it
encompassed peace–keeping which, being grounded on the democratic values, was meant to be a
gloss over the allegation of usurpation raised against the British troops. Post-conflict
administration or government was deployed by Tony Blair to deflect the attention of the
participants and lead them to focus on post-war issues. These constrained euphemistic choices
mirrored the British PM intention and proclivity to shroud the sheer substance of the war to
achieve his political and ideological purposes.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 19
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Probing into the rhetoric of euphemism beyond what was actually said by Blair and
interpreting it in light of the political and ideological functions, it was found that what the former
British PM did was, politically speaking, vindicating himself and legitimizing as well as
defending the legitimacy of the war (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997). He made use of such
euphemisms to sidestep any potential discomfort and mitigate face-threatening acts, such as
accusation; and to ascribe the ongoing and controversial war a positive and emancipatory aspect.
To this effect, Tony Blair had recourse to a set of values and beliefs which constitute the sociocultural or political representations stored in the episodic memory. These political representations
were activated where relevant, such as the democratic values and notions of freedom and liberty
which were drawn upon by Tony Blair when referring to war. The overall purpose of this was to
influence the structure of the mental model of the recipient so as to construct the “preferred
model” targeted, i.e., a model which is in line with the government policy and interests. Implicit
in this was that inequality of social power persisted and dominance prevailed, given that
recipients were seemingly made willing to accept the ideological beliefs entailed in the different
euphemistic structures and importantly more vulnerable to do things they otherwise would not
do, such as the support of the Iraqi war as well as the belief in its Legitimation.
As far as the ideological practices of the euphemistic constructions deployed were
concerned, they were geared to promoting the negative-other presentation and positive-self
presentation (van Dijk, 1992). Put shortly, the OTHER category which included Saddam and his
regime were cast as criminals and evil whereas “US” category was afforded the brunt of
liberators and peace keepers. The pursuit of such a business was made possible through
contextual parameters, namely, access and control over discourse. Throughout the whole corpus,
Tony Blair was found to have an active and dominant access to discourse sources (38 times),
which could be explained by his political power as a Prime Minister or “the high personal
standing in the party” (O’Malley, 2007: 5). He was also the one who initiated and set the agenda
of his discourse, mainly in statement and speeches. One implication of this was that the former
British PM managed to focus on the activation or modification of more general, socio-political
representation, including attitudes, ideologies, and beliefs in a view of winning audience’s
acquiescence and back up of the ongoing war.
Discussion and conclusion
As the data in focus have evinced, the rhetoric of euphemism was extensively used in Tony
Blair’s political discourse during the outbreak of the second Gulf war on Iraq. This rhetoric
serves as a valuable asset to political incumbents, for the efficiency of its political and ideological
work. Being seemingly cognizant of the potential power of euphemization, Tony Blair tried to
make every effort to exploit such in his discourse to manage the impression of his audiences and
more importantly permeate their cognitive models. Relevant in the achievement of these ends
was the role of the K-device which constrained the use of the different euphemistic constructions.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 20
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
These ideologically grounded constructions seemed to have helped the former British PM convey
his political purposes and pass on his ideologies:
1234-
Legitimization of the ongoing war;
Avoidance of any potential political discomfort and mitigation of face-threatening acts;
Promotion of the positive-self presentation and negative-other presentation;
Permeation of audience cognitive models and construction of “preferred mental models”
(van Dijk, 1996) as the major requisite for upholding the asymmetrically existent
institutional and social power.
The present critical study has revealed how Tony Blair crafted the manipulation of his
audiences by selectively employing different euphemistic constructions on issues surrounding
the Iraqi crisis. The critical scrutiny of this rhetorical strategy has also suggested that, along with
being a function of social cognition, its use is constrained and organized by the epistemic
Knowledge device (K-device) of Blair’ context model. Despite these insights, the extent to
which elite or politicians manipulate euphemisms as a source of transgression on intent of
permeating participants’ cognitive models or perception is an area worthy of further
investigation. Indeed, relied upon in politics or even media, the rhetoric of euphemism can sway
and guide reasoning. It can constitute and create cognitive representations in line with that of
power-holders by highlighting simulacrum aspects of reality and hiding the real ones. Hence,
further cognitive analysis of such a rhetoric can help us trace the process of meaning making and
offer us clues as to the different political representations stored in the episodic memory that
underlie its relevant use. Further, if the present study is taken as a starting point for a
longitudinal study or foray into the role and the cognitive underpinnings of euphemism in Blair’s
political discourse as far as his final departure from the cabinet, a clear understanding of the role
and functions of his K-Device, as a flexible epistemic component, can be reached.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 21
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
References
-Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Barnett, M. & Duval, R. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization 59,
39-75.
-Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Press Conferences. Discourse Society
17, 172-203.
-Blackledge, A. (2006). “The Man Say ‘They don’t Need it.” Gender and the Extension of
Language Testing for British Citizenships. Studies in Language & Capitalism 1, 143-161.
-Chilton, P. & Schäffner C. (1997). Discourse and Politics. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse
as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.Vol.2. (pp. 206-229).
London: Sage Publication.
-Delinger, B. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
http://users.utu.fi/bdedelli/cda.html
-Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso. Retrieved from the World Wide
Web: http://www.hv.ntv.edu/~ciwic:1998/re/eagleton.htm
-Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, Cognition and Social Practices: The Rich Surface of Language
and Social interaction. Discourse Studies, 8, 41-49.
-Fairclough, N. (1985). Critical and Descriptive Goals in Discourse Analysis. Journal of
Pragmatics, 9, 739-763.
-Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
-Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
-Fairclough, N. (1992b). Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
-Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.Vol.2. (pp.
258-284). London: Sage Publication.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 22
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
-Fernandez, E.C. (2006). The language of Death: Euphemism and Conceptual Metaphorization in
Victorian Obituaries. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 19, 101-130.
-Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. London: Sage
Publication.
-Ham, K. L. (2005). The Linguistics of Euphemism: A Diachronic Study of Euphemism
Formation. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4, 227-263.
-Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language,
Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Garnham, A. (1989) Descriptions and Discourse Models. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 3, 371-393.
-Lutz, W. (1989). Doublespeak. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
-Meyer, J. L. (2001).Between Theory, Method, and Politics: positioning of the Approaches to
CDA. In R. Wodak. & M. Meye (Eds.), (pp. 14-31) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
London: Sage Publication.
-Mihas, E. (2005). Non-Literal Language in Political Discourse. LSO Working Papers in
Linguistics, 5, 124-139.
-Mral, N. (2006). The Rhetorical State of Alert before the Iraq War 2003. Nordicom Review, 1,
45-62.
-O’Malley, E. (2007). Setting Choices, Controlling Outcomes: the Operation of Prime Ministerial
Influence and the UK’s Decision to Invade Iraq. BJPIR, 9, 1-19.
-Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Publishers.
-Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of
Mass Communication. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
-Triki, M. & Baklouti, A. S. (2002). Foundation for a Course on the Pragmatics of Discourse.
Tunis: Imprimerie Reliure d’Art.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 23
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
-Van Dijk, T.A. (1992). Text, Talk, Elite and Racism. Discours Social / Social Discourse, 4, 3762.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4, 249283.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Discourse and Cognition in Society. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell
(Eds.), (pp.107-126) Communication Theory Today. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1995a). Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis. In C. Schäffner & A.
Wenden
(Eds.), (pp. 17-33) Language and Peace. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1995b). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse & Society, 6, 243-289.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, Power and Access. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard
(Eds.), (pp. 85-103) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Routledge
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1997a). The Study of Discourse. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol.1. (pp. 1-34).
London: Sage Publication.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1997b). Political Discourse and Political Cognition. Proceedings on Congress
on Politicians Discourse, Aston University, July 1997.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1998a). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. Deborah, S. Deborah & H. Hamilton
(Eds.), (pp. 352-371) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (1998b). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. In J. Cheshire & P. Trudgill
(Eds.), (pp. 367-393) The Sociolinguistic Reader: Gender and Discourse. London: Arnold.
-Van Dijk, T.A. (2000) Ideology and Discourse. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. English
version of an Internet Course for the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). Retrieved from the
World Wide Web:
http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse.pdf
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Political Discourse and Ideology. Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
http://www.discourse-in-society.org/di-pol-ideo.htm
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 24
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). The Discourse-Knowledge Interface. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.),
(pp. 85-109) Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Politics, Ideology and Discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics Second language and Politics. Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
http://www.discourse-in-society.org/Politics,%20ideology%20and%20discourse%20(ELL).htm
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2005a). Contextualization in Parliamentary Discourse Aznar, Iraq and the
Pragmatics of Lying. Congreso Discurso Oral, Almería 24-26 de noviembre, de 2005.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2005b). War rhetoric of a Little Ally: Political Implicatures and Aznar’s
Legitimatization of the War in Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics, 4, 65-91.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2006a). Discourse, Context and Cognition. Discourse & Society, 8, 159-177.
-Van Dijk, T. A. (2006b). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17, 359-383.
-Warren, B. (1992). What Euphemisms Tell us about the Interpretation of Words. Studia
Linguistica, 46, 128- 172.
-Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (2003) (Eds.). Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and
Interdisciplinarity. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
-Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Review Article: The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse
Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136-151.
-Wodak, R. & Fairclough, N. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol.2. (pp.
259-283). London: Sage Publication.
-Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001) (Eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage
Publication.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Page 25
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Appendix 1: Corpus of the study
Interviews
PM interview with the British Forces
Broadcasting Service
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page3335
Prime Minister's interview with British Forces
Broadcasting Service
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page3330
Prime Minister interviewed for the BBC World
Service
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3423.asp
Prime Minister's interview with Arabic television
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3434.asp
Prime Minister interviewed on Iraq, WMD,
Europe and the Euro
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3797.asp
Prime Minister's interview with Sky TV
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page4231.asp
PM interview at the European Council meeting in
Brussels
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page4990.asp
PM interview with the BBC Arabic Service
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5021.asp
Prime Minister's interview with British Forces
Broadcasting Service
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5025.asp
Speeches
Prime Minister's address to the Nation
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3327.asp
Prime Minister's vision for Iraq
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3379.asp
Prime Minister's message to Iraqi people
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3449.asp
PM’s message broadcast to Iraqi people
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3469.asp
Prime Minister's speech to the US Congress
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page4220.asp
Statements
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Date of delivery
23 March 2003
N° of Interviews
1
24 March 2003
2
4 April 2003
3
4 April 2003
4
31 May 2003
5
21 July 2003
6
12 December 2003
7
16 December 2003
8
16 December 2003
9
Date of delivery
20 March 2003
N° of Speeches
1
30 March 2003
2
8 April 2003
3
10 April 2003
4
18 July 2003
5
Date of delivery
N° of statements
Page 26
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Statement televised
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page3109
PM statement to troops in Iraq
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3781.asp
Press conferences
PM press conference
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3347.asp
Joint press conference with President Bush at
Camp David
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page3376.asp
20 March 2003
1
29 May 2003
2
Date of delivery
25 March 2003
N° of Press
conference
1
27 March 2003
2
Appendix 2: The different euphemistic constructions detected
Euphemisti Compounding
Acrony
Circumlocution
c
ms
categories
1. Peace-keeping.
1. WMD 1. The service
2. British
men and women.
Servicemen.
2. The liberation
3. The postof the Iraqi
conflict issues.
people.
4. Post-conflict
3. The conflict
administration.
'is not a war of
5. The postconquest but of
conflict
liberation'.
administration.
4. This is not a
6. Post-conflict
war of conquest
administration.
but of liberation.
2003
7. Security threat.
5. The taking of
8. The security
the al-Faw
threat.
Peninsular.
9. Military
6. The taking of
conflict.
Basra.
10. A post7. The
Saddam Iraqi
liberation from
government.
Saddam..
11. The post8. The liberation
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
Reversal
Understatemen
t
1. They are
delivering
safety and
security for
us.
2. They are
doing a
superb job.
3. They are
doing a
necessary
job for
Britain and
the wider
world.
4. This is
not a war of
conquest but
of liberation.
5. Removing
Saddam will
1. This
conflict.
2. The conflict.
3. This
conflict.
4. The conflict.
5. The conflict.
6. Postconflict.
7. This
conflict.
8. This
conflict.
9. Conflict
10. This action
11. This
conflict.
12. The
conflict.
13. The
conflict.
Page 27
Volume 2
Issue 1
June 2015
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
conflict Iraq.
12. Former
Saddam
sympathisers.
http://ijhcschiefeditor.wix.com/ijhcs
of Iraq from
Saddam
also be a
blessing for
all the Iraqi
people.
14. The
conflict.
15. The
conflict in Iraq.
16. The
conflict.
17. The
conflict.
18. The battle.
19. The battle.
20. Military
action.
21. Military
action.
22. Friends
and liberators.
23. The job
Page 28