ALS 2010 Annual Conference Programme - Australian Linguistic ...

Allen
Wendy Allen (University of Melbourne)
w.allen@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
Dysphemism in Australian political discourse: the tactical use of
humorous metaphor
Schäffner (1996) and Chilton and Schäffner (2002) claim that political discourse
will be analyzed successfully if the details of political behaviour and those of linguistic
behaviour are shown to be related. Politics is normally adversarial and
confrontational; fundamental messages of much of politicians’ discourse can be
simplified to: I am good and My opponent is bad. The politically strategic function
of delegitimisation of political oppositions is served by linguistic strategies of verbal
conflict, through which speakers seek to establish their party as stronger, more reliable,
authoritative, trustworthy and credible while representing their opponents
as the opposite (Jacquemet 2006). Such strategies include use of dysphemistic
linguistic tactics like metaphoric insults comparing the opposition with animals, attacking
their moral character, or their rationality and sanity (Allan and Burridge
2006). Animal metaphors play an important role at an emotional and subjective
level; their use is often humorous, sometimes affectionate, but most often abusive,
expressing dislike or contempt (Spence 2001). A speaker using such terms intends
negative connotations to be associated with the referent and used in a political
context it delegitimizes the person referred to.
Jucker (2000) distinguishes three distinct roles in any speech act of verbal aggression:
the speaker who utters the verbal aggression; the addressee to whom the
utterance is primarily directed; and, the target of the aggression, which may or
may not be the addressee. Political insults are invariably uttered for the benefit
of the overhearing audience, i.e. to gain the support of the voting public (Ilie
2001; Ilie 2004). The tactical value of humorous insults is manifold: ambiguity in the
humour shields the user from critique, allowing purported truths to be both said
and not said (“I was only joking”) while simultaneously displaying verbal dexterity
to the audience, creating solidarity between the laughers (Hodge and Mansfield
1985; Blake 2007) thus enhancing the positive face of the speaker while attacking
the positive face of the opponent. This paper will discuss ways in which Australian
politicians talk dysphemistically, yet humorously about their opponents and the
structure and function of the political insults they use. Data is presented from interviews
and media releases from the 2004 and 2007 Australian federal election
campaigns and parliamentary interactions.
References
Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Blake, Barry. 2007. Playing with Words: Humour in the English Language. London: Equinox.