If today one thinks of politics, politicians and their language there is one opinion that always comes first: All politicians are liars They are smooth-talkers who promise things they cannot fulfil only to get more votes in the coming-up election and they use beautiful words to paraphrase and disguise social injustices.
And in some points this opinion is right. There really is a specific political language used by the politicians to follow certain aims but this has not always to be disguise or circumscription. What many of the citizens simply ignore is the fact, that politicians are dependent from the mass. Without the public there would be no need for politicians. And the same goes for political discussions. Politicians don’t argue with each other because they like it. It is always the fact that a political actor starts political relations with another actor and at the same time with the public. If two politicians talk to each other on the television this is always orchestrated for the people who watch the show. (see Dieckmann 1981: 265) The main reason for every politician to lie or to use special vocabulary is for the purpose of being convincing. This paper analyses the language used by politicians in certain situations to convince people of the correctness of their point of view, in its’ roots, mainly based on the book Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic analysis of Political Language by John Wilson. The main focus of this paper is put to the question of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political talk, under which conditions the one is used and when the other and what for. It is not arguable that politicians always have a reason for using ´I` or ´we` in different contexts, especially in written speeches that are planned and very well prepared. Also the difference between scripted and unscripted speeches will be touched in this paper. To employ the theoretical basis that is provided here, in the last section the famous “Sportpalast”-speech of Joseph Goebbels from 1943 will be analysed with regard to the use of different pronominal forms. The final summary shall bundle the gained information to a logical minimum and draw some conclusions from it. It will show if political use of speech is intentionally manipulating and disguising facts, especially in the example of Goebbels or if the use of language in politics does not differ in great parts from the day-to-day use at home.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics
2.1. The interaction of Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics in political language
2.2. Definition of Pragmatics as sub-discipline of linguistics
3. Theoretical basis
3.1. Truth, Linguistics and Pragmatics
3.2. Political pronouns and pragmatic implications
3.2.1. Political pronouns
3.2.2. Myself and others
3.2.3. Culture, Topic and Individual
4. The use of pronominal forms in Goebbels` speech
4.1. Analysis
4.2. Resume
5. Summary
Objectives & Topics
This paper examines how political language is strategically employed to influence public opinion, with a specific focus on the pragmatic use of first-person pronominal forms ("I" and "we"). By analyzing Joseph Goebbels' 1943 "Sportpalast" speech, the author explores how these linguistic choices serve to manipulate listeners, foster collective identity, and legitimize specific political goals.
- Pragmatic analysis of political language as a means of persuasion.
- Functions of the pronominal forms "I" and "we" in political discourse.
- Distinction between inclusive and exclusive "we" in political communication.
- Case study of rhetorical strategies in the "Sportpalast" speech.
- Influence of social context and individual political factors on pronominal selection.
Excerpt from the Book
4.1. Analysis
The speech of Goebbels that is looked at here is the famous one he gave in the “Sportpalast” in Berlin on the 18th of February in 1943, also known under the title ´Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?`.
The first thing that strikes the eye when looking at the use of pronominal forms, here the focus is laid on the three pronominal forms ´ich` (´I`), ´wir` (´we`) and ´ihr` (´you`, plural form) and in addition out of the context on the noun ´Fuehrer`, is that there is a very specific distribution of those four words. In general it is visible that the word ´I` is certainly used throughout the whole speech, but only very seldom. This is very important because of its symbolic meaning. Goebbels, like Hitler, has a specific aim he wants to reach with his speech. He wants to achieve that after his speech every single listener will have the same opinion like he himself, that is, to be in favour for the total war. He can only reach this by convincing the mass who the ´common enemy`, like Hitler stated in his book “Mein Kampf”, is. (see Shapiro 1984: 62) Goebbels wants to convince them that the way he proposes is the right one. Therefore he takes back himself, because he wants to lay weight on the group. This was a very crucial point in Nazi-terms. The individual is nothing, the group is everything. Therefore he does not use the ´I` form when he speaks about the plans Hitler and his followers made to optimize the arms industry or when he names measures that have to be taken to recruit more men for the front line and more women for the work in factories.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research focus on how politicians use language to convince the public, particularly through the strategic use of pronouns in prepared speeches.
2. Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics: Defines the theoretical intersection of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, establishing the necessity of considering social context when analyzing political linguistic action.
3. Theoretical basis: Explores how linguistic systems and pragmatic elements, such as pronouns, inferences, and presuppositions, are utilized for ideological manipulation and constructing political reality.
4. The use of pronominal forms in Goebbels` speech: Analyzes the specific pronominal choices in Goebbels' 1943 speech, demonstrating how he employed different forms of "I" and "we" to manipulate the audience and reinforce Nazi ideology.
5. Summary: Recaps the main findings, emphasizing that pronominal choices in political rhetoric are calculated decisions that significantly impact audience reception and the construction of a persuasive political atmosphere.
Keywords
Political Language, Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics, Pronominal Forms, Rhetoric, Joseph Goebbels, Sportpalastrede, Manipulation, Ideology, Discourse Analysis, Political Communication, Persuasion, Collective Identity, Hitler, Total War
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper fundamentally investigates how political actors utilize specific language structures, particularly pronominal forms, to persuade audiences and achieve political objectives.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The work covers political pragmatics, sociolinguistics, rhetorical analysis, and the study of political discourse as a mechanism for ideological influence.
What is the main research question or goal?
The primary goal is to determine the conditions under which specific pronominal forms like "I" and "we" are employed in political talk and what pragmatic effects these choices are intended to produce.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, applying pragmatic and sociolinguistic theories to perform a textual analysis of political speeches, specifically focusing on the distribution and function of pronouns.
What content is discussed in the main body?
The main body establishes a theoretical framework for political pragmatics, discusses the implications of pronominal choices (such as inclusive vs. exclusive "we"), and provides a detailed case study of Goebbels' 1943 "Sportpalast" speech.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include political language, pragmatics, rhetoric, manipulation, ideology, discourse analysis, collective identity, and the specific case study of Goebbels' speeches.
How does the author define the difference between "exclusive we" and "inclusive we"?
The "exclusive we" is used to distance the speaker from an action or to delineate specific groups, whereas the "inclusive we" is used to create a sense of unity and shared responsibility between the speaker, the government, and the audience.
Why does Goebbels use the first-person singular "I" so sparingly in the "Sportpalastrede"?
According to the analysis, Goebbels minimizes the "I" to downplay the individual and elevate the group ("the mass"), consistent with Nazi ideology where the collective is paramount and the individual is secondary.
What role does the "Fuehrer" play in the pronominal strategy of Goebbels?
The term "Fuehrer" acts as a symbolic anchor for authority and idolization, frequently appearing when Goebbels discusses past achievements or demands loyalty, thereby framing the Fuehrer as the ultimate authority and perfection.
- Quote paper
- Claudia Effenberger (Author), 2006, Constructing the convincing political speech, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/118108
