Usage of euphemisms in English political discourse

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

INTRODUCTION

Euphemisms are powerful linguistic tools that “are embedded so deeply in our language that few of us, even those who pride themselves on being plainspoken, ever get through a day without using them,” [14, p. 228]. The need for euphemisms is both social and emotional, as it allows discussion of “touchy” or taboo subjects (such as sex, personal appearances, or religion) without enraging, outraging, or upsetting other people. Politics is one of the fields where the use of euphemisms is increasing at an alarming rate due to politicians' wish to lead the society better by camouflaging the grim reality with the help of euphemisms.

This paper examines the latest political euphemisms used in the English newspapers. The research question, which is to be answered in the present study, is what political euphemisms are used in the current English newspapers and what are their underlying semantic and specific features.

The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that political euphemisms are approached from semantic and pragmatic points of view with regarding their aims and demonstrating its practical usage.

The significance of the research is that it defines euphemism and presents the history of its usage, gives general characteristics and possible classifications of euphemisms, and analyses goals of the most recent political euphemisms.

The relevance of the research topic is that today, since we all live in the globalized world demanding to understand at a glance some significant facts or titling even if they are skillfully camouflaged, it is really important to be in the know of the language that is used by both politicians and newspapers.

The subject of the research are euphemisms used in English political discourse, their types and the most common instances for usage of them.

The object of the research are examples of euphemisms usage with analyzing their features referring to researchers that work with the subject matter.

The aim of this research is to explore the political euphemisms, their etymology and usage by contemporary politicians and the ones that are used in the English newspapers of the 21st century and analyse their semantic and structural features and goals.

The tasks of this work are:

- to examine theoretical approaches and the background of euphemisms usage;

- to identify the political euphemisms used in today's English newspapers;

- to group euphemisms into classes according to their features;

- to analyse goals and peculiarities of political euphemisms.

The methods used in the work operate with political euphemisms from the English newspaper “The Guardian” which are subjected to analysis. The research demonstrates peculiarities of the usage of political euphemisms in some of the politicians speeches and in the English press, as well as regards their underlying meanings. The research question, which is to be answered in the present study, is to define what political euphemisms are used in the current English newspapers and what are their underlying semantic and structural features. The research methods used in this study are descriptive method and content analysis.

The structure of the work consists of introduction, three sections with each of them being subdivided into two sub-sections that reveal the subject, conclusion, references and sources of illustrative material.

SECTION 1. EUPHEMISMS IN GENERAL SPEECH PRACTICE

Language is a system of characters that came into being from men's common labour, being developed and enriched in the course of time. With the development of our society, a fair number of words are labelled frivolous, vulgar or at least inconsiderate, and some kinds of languages are forbidden, as different religions, superstitious believes, social customs and other reasons. In communication, for better maintaining social relationship and exchanging ideas, people have to resort to a new different kind of language, which can make distasteful ideas seem acceptable or even desirable. There are words in every language which people instinctively avoid because they are considered indecent, indelicate, rude, too direct, or impolite. As the “offensive” referents, for which these words stand, must still be alluded to, they are often described in a roundabout way, by using substitutes called euphemisms. Geoffrey Leach in his “Semantics” discusses euphemism as “the linguistic equivalent of disinfectant” [9, p. 53].

According to Rawson, euphemisms are powerful linguistic tools that “are embedded so deeply in our language that few of us, even those who pride themselves on being plainspoken, ever get through a day without using them” [18, p. 228]. The need for euphemisms is both social and emotional, as it allows discussion of taboo subjects (such as sex, personal appearances or religion) and acts as a pressure valve whilst maintaining the appearance of civility.

A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver, or to make it less troublesome for the speaker. The deployment of euphemisms is a central aspect within the public application of political correctness. It may also substitute a description of something or someone to avoid revealing secret, holy, or sacred names to the uninitiated, or to obscure the identity of the subject of a conversation from potential eavesdroppers. Some euphemisms are intended to amuse [20, p. 213].

The following wording presents a euphemism as a word or phrase that stands in for another word or phrase, chosen to mask or soften the true meaning of what is being expressed. A euphemism may be used for superstitious reasons, due to religious or cultural taboos, or for political reasons. For a fiction writer, euphemisms, in dialogue, can be helpful in revealing character [28].

A. Fromkin and H. Rodman define a euphemism as “a word or phrase that replaces a taboo word or serves to avoid frightening or unpleasant subjects” [22, p. 304]. “The Oxford Companion to the English Language” [22] explains a euphemism in a similar way, saying that it is a word or phrase used as polite replacement for another, which is considered too vulgar, too painful or offensive to religious susceptibilities. In the Hutchinson's encyclopedia a euphemism is defined as a figure of speech whose name in Greek means `speaking well of something'. To speak or write euphemistically is to use a milder, more polite, less direct, or even less honest expression rather than one that is considered too blunt, vulgar, direct or revealing. It is also important to note that euphemism may be treated as a synonym as it can be used to replace a word having a similar meaning. Also, euphemisms present different degrees of euphemisation, i.e. some euphemisms cover the embarrassing or taboo nature of the words better than the other euphemisms.

Whichever definition of a euphemism we take it is perceived as a kind of polite and roundabout mode of expression, which is used to soften or beautify the unpleasantness of reality. This statement will be based on Williams' definition which says that euphemism is a kind of linguistic elevation or amelioration specifically directed toward finding socially acceptable words for concepts that many people cannot easily speak of [1, p. 118]. This definition best summarizes the essence of a euphemism treating it as linguistic elevation with the aim of finding socially acceptable words for those which are unacceptable.

So, now it is possible to conclude that euphemisms may be defined in different ways, but the main idea remains the same. Euphemization of speech is an important part of every language system in regard to the fact that people are always inclined to avoid abusing or confusing both themselves and other people. Today, the euphemisms usage is a socially acceptable phenomenon. But it seems that it is especially significant for the political sphere of our life.

1.1 Etymology and usage of euphemisms

The word euphemism comes from the Greek word åõöçìßá (euphemia), meaning “the use of words of good omen”, which in turn is derived from the Greek root-words eu (åõ), “good/well” + pheme (öÞìé) “speech/speaking”, meaning glory, flattering speech, praise [29].

The eupheme was originally a word or phrase used in place of a religious word or phrase that should not be spoken aloud; etymologically, the eupheme is the opposite of the blaspheme (evilspeaking) [30].

From the early beginning of language euphemisms have probably existed at least in the religious aspect. Gods, whether benign or malign, had been treated with respect to terror. As an example, the Ancient Greek term for the Furies and the Avenging Gods was the Eumenides who was regarded as `the kindly one' or `the good humored lady' in the hope that they might be flattered into being less furious.

Etymologically, the eupheme is the opposite of the blaspheme (evil-speaking). Primary examples of taboo words requiring the use of a euphemism are names for deities, such as Persephone, Hecate, or Nemesis. The term euphemism itself was used as a euphemism by the ancient Greeks, meaning "to keep a holy silence" (speaking well by not speaking at all).

Historical linguistics has revealed traces of taboo deformations in many languages. Several are known to have occurred in Indo-European languages, including the presumed original Proto-Indo-European words for bear (*rkso), wolf (*wlkwo), and deer (originally, hart - although the word hart remained commonplace in parts of England until the 20th century as is witnessed by the widespread use of the pub sign The White Hart). In different Indo-European languages, each of these words has a difficult etymology because of taboo deformations - a euphemism was substituted for the original, which no longer occurs in the language.

Euphemisms may be formed in a number of ways. Periphrasis or circumlocution is one of the most common -- to “speak around” a given word, implying it without saying it. Over time, circumlocutions become recognized as established euphemisms for particular words or ideas.

Bureaucracies such as the military and large corporations frequently spawn euphemisms of a more deliberate nature. Organizations coin doublespeak expressions to describe objectionable actions in terms that seem neutral or inoffensive. For example, a term used in the past for contamination by radioactive isotopes was Sunshine units.

Military organizations kill people, sometimes deliberately and sometimes by mistake; in doublespeak, the first may be called neutralizing the target or Employing Kinetic Effects and the second collateral damage. Violent destruction of non-state enemies may be referred to as pacification [26]. Two common terms when a soldier is accidentally killed (buys the farm) by their own side are friendly fire or blue on blue (BOBbing) - bought the farm has its own interesting history. Its origins might come from the life insurance payout or a death benefit payment that would permit the soldier's family to pay off the mortgage on real property, such as a farm, or from “the farm” being a slang reference to a burial plot. In World War I the slang “become a landowner” meant to “inhabit a cemetery plot”. The “farm” is a euphemism for property, and "buying" it is a euphemism for the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefit payment that should be sufficient to outright pay for the soldier's “farm” [13, p. 98 - 102]. In 2010, the United States administration of President Barack Obama approved a "targeted killing" of a man wanted by the Central Intelligence Agency, effectively launching this term as an official alternative to legal assassination.

Execution is an established euphemism referring to the act of putting a person to death, with or without judicial process. It originally referred to the execution, i.e., the carrying out, of a death warrant, which is an authorization to a sheriff, prison warden, or other official to put a named person to death. In legal usage, execution can still refer to the carrying out of other types of orders; for example, in U.S. legal usage, a writ of execution is a direction to enforce a civil money judgment by seizing property. Likewise, lethal injection itself may be considered a euphemism for putting the convict to death by poisoning.

Industrial unpleasantness such as pollution may be toned down to outgassing or runoff - descriptions of physical processes rather than their damaging consequences. Some of this may simply be the application of precise technical terminology in the place of popular usage, but beyond precision, the advantage of technical terminology may be its lack of emotional undertones and the likelihood that the general public (at least initially) will not recognize it for what it really is; the disadvantage being the lack of real-life context. Terms like waste and wastewater are also avoided in favor of terms such as byproduct, recycling, reclaimed water and effluent. In the oil industry, oil-based drilling muds were simply renamed organic phase drilling muds, where organic phase is a euphemism for “oil” [13, p. 120]. However, this kind of "euphemism" is not necessarily malicious in the sense that labeling an individual byproduct stream "waste" can have severe legal consequencies, such as additional taxes or prohibition of transport or export. In medicine, magnetic resonance imaging has replaced nuclear magnetic resonance in order to avoid frightening patients with the word nuclear (even though MRI scanning does not involve the use of harmful ionizing radiation).

While sometimes used to refer to activities designed to make life more comfortable for civilians, the term can also be used to imply intervention by coercive force, including warfare. Examples: Pacification of Algeria, Pacification of the Araucania, Pacification operations in German-occupied Poland, and the Pacification of Tonkin. One can cite other instances of political euphemisms usage such as:

1) presence: this term had been used as a euphemism for 'occupation' during the Cold War;

2) police action: in the early days of the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman referred to the United States response to the North Korean invasion as a police action. Similarly, the Vietnam War is also referred to as a "police action" or "security action";

3) humanitarian intervention: the Clinton Doctrine of military interventionism argues for involvement in warfare on humanitarian grounds. The Kosovo War is believed to be the first so-called humanitarian war;

4) [armed] conflict; aggression; action; tension; unrest; crisis: these generic words are used in many respects for battles, skirmishes, prolonged wars, and undeclared wars; they may also refer to quasi-wars between peoples and factions that do not amount to a sovereign state or nation. The Wikipedia uses this terminology, e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Cold War has been described as a stand-off conflict that was the result of tension;

5) limited kinetic action: after the 60-day War Powers Act deadline for congressional authorization to remain involved in the 2011 military intervention in Libya passed, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates refused to call the operation a war; instead describing it as a "limited kinetic action".

The renaming of War Department as "Defense Department" in the post-World War II era in various countries is itself a euphemism, as pointed out by George Orwell (who writes of a Ministry of Peace or "Minipax" in a state at perpetual war in Nineteen Eighty-Four) [2].

So, it is obvious that political euphemisms usage has been flourishing since such a phenomenon emerged. Now, it is wide-spread and socially-accepted part of speech which seems to be especially significant for politicians.

1.2 Types of euphemisms

Short sharp terms make big points clear. But people often prefer to soften their speech with euphemism: a mixture of abstraction, metaphor, slang and understatement that offers protection against the offensive, harsh or blunt. In 1945, in one of history's greatest euphemisms, Emperor Hirohito informed his subjects of their country's unconditional surrender (after two atomic bombs, the loss of 3m people and with invasion looming) with the words, “The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.”

Euphemisms range promiscuously, from diplomacy (“the minister is indisposed”, meaning he won't be coming) to the bedroom (a grande horizontale in France is a notable courtesan). But it is possible to attempt a euphemistic taxonomy. One way to categorise them is ethical. In “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell wrote that obfuscatory political language is designed “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”. Some euphemisms do distort and mislead; but some are motivated by kindness [8, p. 56].

One way to typify them is by theme. Another - and a useful way to begin - is by nationality. A euphemism is a kind of lie, and the lies peoples and countries tell themselves are revealing.

Besides the divisions mentioned above, euphemisms can be divided into six semantic categories:

1. Profession euphemisms. In western countries, mental work is considered to be the high job whereas physical labor is recognized as humble work, besides there is a great difference in the remuneration. Thus, most 14of the people hold that people with different occupations have different status in society. Some lowly paid or indecent jobs are often used in English culture just for saving face and expressing politeness. Therefore there are fewer occupations called jobs, many have become professions. Some words and forms like engineer are more popular among people in the communication.

English euphemisms are used to express some fancy occupational titles, which can elevate the people's status. Many previously unwelcome professions have now taken more appealing names. For example, in profession euphemisms, people always use cleaning operative for road sweeper or dustman, sanitation engineer for garbage man, meat technologist for butcher, and hairdresser has turned into beautician, etc.

2. Disease euphemisms. In the disease euphemisms, people always use long illness replaces for cancer, social disease replaces for syphilis and AIDS, also they use lung trouble substitutes for tuberculosis and so on. And if someone with a mental illness, we cannot say psychosis directly, we should say he or she is a little confused, meanwhile, we should use hard of hearing in stand of deaf.

3. Death euphemisms. In many societies, because death is feared, so people tend to avoid mentioning death directly and talk about it in a euphemistic way. They try to employ pleasant terms to express the ideas. So death has hundreds of soft, decent, and better-sounding names, such as breathe one's last, fall asleep, go west, join the majority, lay down one's life, pass away, pay the debt of nature, reach a better world, to be at peace, to return to the dust, or he worked until he breathed his last, etc.

4. Sex euphemisms. Euphemisms concerning sex: the great divide, willing woman, gay boy, lost girl can be used to replace divorce, loose woman, male homosexual and prostitute.

5. Crime euphemisms. In the field of crime euphemism: gentleman of the road, hero of the underground, the candy man are often used to substitute for robber, heroin, and drug pusher.

6. Political euphemisms. Since the function of euphemism can reduce the unpleasantness of a term or notion, it is natural that announcements of governments will often resort them to understate the facts, e.g. student unrest can be used to replace student strike; police action, search and clear, war games are used to substitute for aggression, massacre and war exercise [29].

So, euphemisms which may be regarded as product of human activity may be classified in a lot of different ways mentioned above, but it seems more reasonable to divide them according to their semantic features. Now, it may be concluded that all the euphemisms can be divided into six groups concerning six different spheres of our life. Those are the spheres mentioning of which may be insulting or offensive for both vulnerable strata of population and all the people at all. In regard to these factors, euphemisms now are very common and wide-spread.

SECTION 2. EUPHEMISMS IN ENGLISH POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Though euphemizing is now an accepted and established practice, it has acquired a dubious connotation in light of its tendency to deliberately disguise actual meanings of words in political discourse. Lutz, an English professor at Rutgers University, a champion of rhetorical canons and the art of clear writing across numerous discourses, focuses his work on ethical considerations in using euphemisms, what he calls “the morality of rhetoric” (1989). He makes an immediate distinction between euphemisms proper and doublespeak: when a euphemism isused to deceive, it becomes doublespeak. The sole purpose of doublespeak is to make the unreasonable seem reasonable, the blamed seem blameless, the powerless seem powerful. The term doublespeak was coined as an amalgam of two Orwellian expressions, doublethink and newspeak, both of which appeared in Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four [8]. Basic to doublespeak is incongruity: the incongruity between what is said, or left unsaid, and what really is; between the essential function of language (communication) and what doublespeak does - misleads, distorts, deceives, inflates, obfuscates.

Chomsky noted that to make sense of political discourse, it's necessary to give a running translation into English, decoding the doublespeak of the media, academic social scientists and the secular priesthood generally. Opposition to the use of doublespeak has noticeably increased since the 1970s due to mounting concern of the NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) over the manipulation of language by the government and the military in reporting and discussing the Vietnam War. Since 1974 a Committee on Public Doublespeak has made an annual award to a public utterance that is grossly unfactual, deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-contradictory, especially one that has pernicious political and social consequences [13, p. 98].

The recipient of the 2003 NCTE Doublespeak Award was President George W. Bush, who made unequivocal statements regarding the reasons that the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions against another nation - acts of war - reasons which remained unsubstantiated.

A popular synonym for euphemism in the media is `spin'. According to the New York Times columnist William Safire, spin is “deliberate shading of news perception” [30].

Linda Wertheimer, a reporter for National Public Radio, defined spin as “not quite lying,” “not quite truth.” The presidential campaign of both candidates in 2004 heavily relied on designated spinners or spin-doctors, whose mission was to publicly defend or downplay errors made by their candidate. The highly staged and hyperbolic spin operations, for example, included monitoring the candidate's every word and comparing his statements with public records through a computer matrix for possible exaggerations or misstatements, sending the computer-generated list of responses via emails to reporters and partisans all over the country. The intent was to reshape public perceptions of the candidates' performances and personalities. For example, the Kerry campaign methodically highlighted the incumbent's inability to face the reality and accused him of spinning by presenting a “rosy” view of Iraq and the economy to the public, though the word “lie” was never used. “He can spin till he's dizzy,” the President lives in “a fantasy world of spin,” one Yale gentleman charged another. Interestingly enough, commentators on both sides also avoided using the “L-word” (lie). Instead, they chose to euphemize the instances when the political opponents “misspoke”, “misstated” or “stretched the truth”. For example, USAToday accused the Bush administration of putting an optimistic face on the worsening conflict in Iraq and called it “upbeat spins” [26, p. 8]. There were numerous euphemisms coined by spin-doctors of the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. They all can be classified under the rubric of national security euphemisms. 9/11 is one of them. The euphemism is an index, a minimal deictic, which refers to the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001, when the country lost nearly 3,000 people. The terrorist attack was designed by Osama bin Laden and executed by 18 terrorists from different Arab countries. Being an escapist expression, it removes dreaded connotations of horror and pain that the nation experienced as the victim of the attack. Jacques Derrida, in a post-9/11 interview, attempted to explain the minimalist aim of this dating.

Jacques Derrida argues that the meaning of the event being ineffable, the language admits its powerlessness and is reduced to mechanically pronouncing a date, repeating it endlessly, as a kind of ritual incantation. “War on terror” became a pervasive euphemism for the war on militant Islam [18, p. 148 - 151]. To use religion as the target of military engagement would be diplomatically perilous for the United States. It could have alienated Muslim countries which have been the country's allies in the post 9/11 period, and inflamed millions of Islam believers worldwide. “Terror” does not define the enemy explicitly; it refers to enemy activity on the emotional level, singling out violence as its core sense. The invasion of Iraq was called “a liberation” (though it was later defined as an occupation), “a broad and concerted campaign”, executed with the help of the “Coalition of the Willing” (among them the United Kingdom is the only ally which has contributed significantly to the occupation). The war was also defined as “tearing down the apparatus of terror”, “confronting dictators”, and “regime change” in an attempt to justify the invasion for a humanitarian reason. The outcome of the war in Iraq was portrayed euphemistically in the political narratives of the Republicans. The war on terror has brought a number of euphemisms intended to blur legal boundaries to justify illegal treatment of American citizens or detainees from other nations. Among them are “unlawful combatants” or “enemy combatants” rather than “prisoners of war” or “criminals”. The euphemism “prison abuse” was coined after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke in spring 2004 in order to avoid the word “torture”, which clearly characterized what some American soldiers and civilian contractors did in one of the most notorious prisons of Saddam's former regime. “Abuse” is a misdemeanor or mistreatment, while “torture” denotes a violent crime which involves an infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. According to military officers at Abu Ghraib, they were encouraged to create “favorable conditions” for interrogation, which is another euphemism for “rough” and “aggressive techniques”, approved by the government for conducting interrogation procedures. These techniques entailed a systematic “softening up” of prisonersthrough isolation, privations, insults, threats, and humiliation - methods that the Red Cross concluded were “tantamount to torture”. Originally, the above techniques were used against Qaeda enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, but later the Guantanamo-style interrogation methods were exported to Abu Ghraib, even though the Iraqi war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions [29].

So, as one can notice, euphemisms in political discourse deserve to be regarded as a separate theme due to their number, rich history and the variety of features, goals and meanings they possess. That is why, the euphemisms mentioned above will be analized in further sections where we shall try to define their main objectives by implying illustrative usage in order to see how they function in political discourse practice.

2.1 Specific features of English political euphemisms

Euphemisms are used in different spheres of life without considering which euphemism should be implied and when, however, it is not so easy to classify them as there is no uniform standard.

As is has already been stated, a euphemism is a tool for political participants to hide scandals, disguise the truth, guide public thoughts when discussing social issues or events. In spite of some common features political euphemism shares with others, it has three typical features [25, p. 36]:

1. Greater Degree of Deviation from its Signified. According to Swiss linguist Saussure, language signs are a combination of the signifier, the phonetic forms of language and the signified, objects in existence represented by linguistic forms. Due to the lack of direct or logical relations between the two, they have a discretionary relationship with each other, making it possible to create euphemism by replacing the signifier.

Because euphemism is just created by transforming the signifier to enlarge the association distance between the signifier and the signified, euphemism meanings stay relative to their former zero-degree ones. Although euphemism and its former zero-degree signifier refer to the same signified, political euphemism is different from those commonly used euphemistic forms in order to avoid death and other physical phenomena in that it deviates greatly from the meaning expressed by its former signifier, or even a complete distortion. For example, Former US President Reagan once named the 10-warhead intermediate-range missile as “peacekeeper”; some later political participants named their attack as “active defense”; they even replaced “recession” with “negative growth” because it sounded offensive to the ear. It is quite obvious that these expressions are not a simple replacement of the former zero-degree signifier, but quite opposite meanings to their literal meanings, just like replacing “black” with “white”. It might as well mark euphemism's deviation degree with a range from 1 to 10, within which a greater number refers to a greater degree of deviation. In this case, the above mentioned political euphemism expressions should be marked with 10 while some ordinary expressions such as “overweight” and “fat” can only be marked as 1.

2. More Vague Meanings. George Orwell pointed out two characteristics of political discourse in Politics and the English Language [8], that is, the obsolescence and vagueness of figure of speech. Euphemism, characterized by replacing direct expressions with implicative, obscure and vague ones, plays a quite essential role in demystifying the connotation of political discourse when serving political purposes. Some commonly employed demystifying methods in political euphemism include replacing specific meanings with general ones, replacing hyponyms with superordinates and replacing derogatory meanings with neutral or even commendatory ones. For instance, people often refer to the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima as “the gadget”, “the device”, “the thing” or other vague meanings. When talking about American army's invasion into Grenada in 1983, President Reagan was quite dissatisfied with the word “invasion” used by the journalists, instead, he expressed it as “a rescue mission”, glorifying their military invasion as their help offer to other countries. Similarly, US air attacks in Vietnam and Libya were called `air operation; President Bush also glorifying their military attack to Iraq with some neutral and general expressions such as “military operation” or “disarm” in this speech delivered on the very day they made war against Iraq in 2003.

3. Strong Characteristic of Times. Euphemisms are the language reflection of social culture; therefore changes in social development will propel those in language. In each international vicissitude, political euphemism will be booming. Due to US's important role in international politics as well as its dynamic domestic politics and economy, rich soil is provided for the creation of political euphemism. For example, from US economic decline are “recession”, “disinflation” and “negative growth” created, hence giving birth to some euphemistic expressions such as `downsize' or “workforce adjustment” [5, p. 44]. After Watergate Scandal, quite a few euphemistic expressions were produced to hide such political scandal. In addition, military actions are also an extension from politics. It is said that war has brought about not only death and destruction but new euphemistic expressions because they will make death sound less horrible. US Department of Defense named their air attack in Vietnam as “air support” and “protective action”, their destruction over Vietnamese villages as “pacification program” and those homeless refugees as “ambient non-combat personnel”. Similarly, deaths and injuries caused by their bombardment over other nations were expressed as “collateral damage”. It is no wonder that English Teachers' Council of US once awarded the Best Political Euphemism Award to its Department of Defense. Besides, its characteristic of times can also be reflected in the variation in the signifier of the same objective phenomenon with time. In 1950s, Truman described Korean War as “police action”; in 1960s and 1970s, Vietnam War was called “Vietnam Conflict” by US; in 1983, US invasion into Grenada was said to be “a rescue mission” instead of “incursion”; its invasion into Panama was also called “Operation Just Cause” and Bush Government said Iraqi War beginning in March, 2003 as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Inside the language system, such constant changes with time evolve from the relationship between the signifier and signified mentioned previously. Although there is no relation between linguistic signs and their signified, people tend to relate euphemism to its signified after it has been used for a period. As a result, the former vagueness and sense of distance disappear and euphemistic color fades away. Consequently, politicians will rack their brains to find alternative expressions.

Euphemisms can be classified according to different criteria, rules, or principles. The following is a presentation of some possible classifications of euphemisms. Rawson divides euphemisms into two general types, namely, positive and negative which are distinguished according to the evaluative aspect [18, p. 49]. Positive euphemisms can also be called stylistic euphemisms or exaggerating euphemisms. The positive ones inflate and magnify, making the euphemized items seem altogether grander and more important than they really are.

In order to avoid thrill, to be polite or to achieve cooperation, British and American people, especially contemporary Americans, prefer using the technique of exaggeration to euphemize something unpleasant and embarrassing. The positive euphemisms include the many fancy occupational titles, which save the egos of workers by elevating their job status. It might be said that quite a few positive euphemisms are doublespeak and cosmetic words. They usually appear in the political, military and commercial vocabulary.

The negative euphemisms deflate and diminish. They are defensive in nature, offsetting the power of tabooed terms and otherwise eradicating from the language everything that people prefer not to deal with directly. The negative euphemisms can be called traditional euphemisms or narrowing euphemism. They are extremely ancient, and closely connected with the taboos. A euphemism and its corresponding taboo are in fact two faces of the same coin. They refer to the same thing though they have different looks, the euphemism having a much more pleasant face than the taboo.

Euphemisms, whether positive or negative, can be also divided into unconscious euphemisms and conscious euphemisms. The criterion for classification is the euphemistic meaning whether correlative with the original meaning or not. Unconscious euphemisms, as its name implies, were developed long ago, and are used unconsciously, without any intent to deceive or evade. Conscious euphemisms are widely employed, which involves more complex categories. When people communicate with each other, speakers are conscious to say tactfully, and the listeners understand their implied meanings.

So, referring to different researchers, in this section some specific features of political euphemisms are shown. But, it is obvious that their goal remains the same - to camouflage the truth and to soften one's expressions in order so sound more polite and agreeable. Having analyzed some specific features of English political euphemisms in this work, it may be concluded that there are three of them that possess the most important items that politicians and mass-media workers try to follow while writing and pronouncing their speeches or writing articles and announcing some specific information.

2.2 Evolution of English euphemisms

It would be reasonable to present this issue and reveal the subject by referring to R. Keyes [13], the author of the famous book concerning the issue.

As R. Keyes notes in his book Euphemania, “Euphemisms can have a bright side and a dark side” [13, p. 24]. They can be a source of evasion, a way to avoid topics that should be confronted, a way of choosing not to face unpleasant truths. At worst, euphemisms are employed by politicians, bureaucrats, merchants, and others as tools of manipulation. Ronald Reagan, for example, renamed the multiwarhead MX missile, capable of destroying multiple major cities and killing tens, or even hundreds, of millions of civilians - Peacekeeper.

But now, it would be reasonable to cite the performance of George Carlin, an American comedian, called “Euphemisms and political correctness” [6] in order to demonstrate evolution of one of the euphemisms concerning war. Of course, it was made in a light and comic air, but, still, the topic claims to be as serious as one of those “Guardian” articles we are going to work with. So, the comedian, after telling his negative attitude to PC proposes an example on its usefulness:

“You know, there is such a combat condition when a fighting person nervous system has been stressed to its absolute peak and is about to “snap”. In the I World War, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables.That was 70 years ago. Then, a whole generation went by and the II World War came along and the very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now, takes a little longer to say, doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock: Shell shock - battle fatigue.

Then, we have the war in Korea, 1950. And the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion… Hey, we're up to eight syllables now! It sounds like something that might have happened to your car!

Then, of course, came the war in Vietnam, and thanks to the lies and PC surrounding our world, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was now called POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORSER. Still eight syllables, but now we have a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I bet'ya, if we were still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam soldiers might have gotten the attention they needed at that time, I bet'ya!...” [32].

So, this abstract have shown the evolution of the English euphemism to mark a combat condition. It was analysed by George Carlin throught the history and in the contexts of different wars. That performance is also interesting due to the fact that it shows the attitude of ordinary people to such transformations in the language as a way to hide oneself behind the wall of jargon and unnecessary correctness. Having analyzed the evolution of this naming, now, it is possible to conclude that this process of evolution tend to make naming longer with the help of replacing short and sharp terms with more long but less emotional lexics. So, it can be poined that the main transformation that takes an active part in evolution of English political euphemisms is neutralization.

3. ILLUSTRATIVE USAGE OF ENGLISH POLITICAL EUPHEMISMS

Political euphemisms are in a class of their own, principally because they seem to involve words that few would find offensive to start with, replaced by phrases that are meaninglessly ambiguous. As the late G. Carlin, an American comedian, noted, people used to get old and die. Now they become first preelderly, then senior citizens and pass away in a terminal episode or (if doctors botch their treatment) after a therapeutic misadventure [7]. These bespeak a national yearning for perfection, bodily and otherwise.

There exists such a book as On Writing Well. In it, author William Zinsser argues that euphemisms are one of the worst clutters in language. He finds it disappointing that they have become so common in our everyday conversation. He says they often get in the way of what we're actually trying to say, or give us a means of hiding behind political-correctness-gone-amok, or worse yet, vague rhetoric. It gives people, especially politicians, a way of hiding their mistakes or dispelling possible criticism against their actions [15, p. 148].

There are some of common political euphemisms:

1) slum - depressed socioeconomic area;

2) town dump - volume reduction unit;

3) bum - hard-core unemployed;

4) disabled person - minimally exceptional person;

5) invasion - reinforced protective reaction strike

When a company makes layoffs, it is simply resorting to “involuntary methodologies”. When an Air Force missile crashes, it "impacts the ground prematurely”. When a corporation closes a plant, it is a “volume-related production-schedule adjustment”. Companies that go belly-up have a “negative cash-flow problem”.

As G. Orwell pointed out in "Politics and the English Language," an essay written in 1946 [8] but often cited during the wars in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Iraq, “political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness”. Orwell's warning that clutter is not just a nuisance but a deadly tool came true in recent decades of American military adventurism. It was during George W. Bush's presidency that “civilian casualties” in Iraq became “collateral damage”.

Verbal camouflage reached new heights during General Alexander Haig's tenure as President Reagan's secretary of state. Before Haig nobody had thought of saying “at this juncture of maturization” to mean “now”. He told the American people that terrorism could be fought with “meaningful sanctionary teeth” and that intermediate nuclear missiles were “at the vortex of cruciality”. As for any worries that the public might harbor, his message was “leave it to Al”, though what he actually said was: “We must push this to a lower decibel of public fixation. I don't think there's much of a learning curve to be achieved in this area of content”.

The art of euphemism has been a part of political life since time began. When three treasury ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resigned from Harold Macmillan's government in 1958, he described the crisis as “a little local difficulty” [2]. “Politician's get it with their mothers milk” says Nigel Rees, author of A Man About a Dog, which looks into the subject [15, p. 270].

Churchill's "terminological inexactitude" is a prime example, as is the now famous phrase from the Australian “Spycatcher” trial that one of those being interviewed was being “economical with the truth”.

On the other side of the Atlantic, euphemisms are equally popular, especially in the language of war: “collateral damage”, “friendly fire” and “extraordinary rendition” have all entered the military lexicon.

To speak about more recent examples of usage of euphemisms in political discourse, it is reasonable to cite Hillary Clinton who recently got into trouble when she claimed to have been pinned down by sniper fire while on a trip to Bosnia.

When video footage revealed the episode had been a figment of her imagination, she went in front of the cameras and admitted to “mis-speaking”:

“I did mis-speak the other day. You know this has been a very long campaign so occasionally I am a human being like everybody else”.

So, there were cited some of the examples of usage of euphemisms in English political discourse which demonstrate the extend of their significance to political life and the way politicians try to explain their boners or justify their actions in order to look more decently, honest and innocent while speaking to public.

3.1 Euphemisms in English political texts of the 21st century

Due to the lack of classifications of political euphemisms according to semantic groups, it is reasonable to propose such a classification in this research that is based on the topic of articles studied while preparing. All articles can be divided into nine groups:

1) articles on civil and public services policy;

2) articles on welfare;

3) articles of trade union issues;

4) articles on tax and spending issues;

5) articles on economic policy;

6) articles on election issues

7) articles on defence policy;

8) articles of terrorism policy;

9) articles on political parties issues.

Taking to account the limitation obliging us to omit some of the articles, we can allow ourselves to regard only the most important and, to some extand, the most interesting groups of political euphemisms. So, let us start analyzing euphemizing of speech concerning election issues.

1. Articles on election issues contain a considerable number of political euphemisms, namely, inflammatory language, lame duck, and HIPC.

a) inflammatory language is a euphemism for hate speech in the articles on election issues. The following example illustrates the importance of the issue of prejudice against newcomers during the period of elections in Britain where inflammatory language is used instead of hate language in order to soften the deplorable immigrants' situation. For instance:

* Some agreed it was becoming increasingly acceptable for Britons to use the kind of racist and inflammatory language about eastern Europeans that they would never direct at black, Asian or Middle Eastern people (guardian.co.uk, 29 April 2010) [29].

b) lame duck is a euphemism for an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected. Lame duck officials tend to have less political power, as other elected officials are less inclined to cooperate with them. The term was often used of an outgoing president of the United States who becomes ineffectual during his last months of office, if not before, but nowadays this euphemism is used to refer to officials of different rank and to the government itself, for example:

* But critics described the move as undemocratic and warned it could lead to a lame-duckgovernment, hanging on in office after losing a no-confidence vote (guardian.co.uk, 5 July 2010) [29].

* It is understood that Balls, Alexander and Mandelson argued against the proposal on the basis that it would repeat the difficulties faced by Tony Blair, who also announced before the 2005 election that he would not serve a full term. That decision dogged Blair's third term, leaving him as a lame duck (guardian.co.uk, 18 May 2010) [29].

The use of a euphemism lame duck in the above examples reduces the negative opinion, i.e the inefficiency and embrrassment experienced by lame duck officials and governments.

c) the last euphemism which is common within the field of elections is HIPC meaning heavily indebted poor countries. During electioneering a great deal of politicians enjoy boasting about their deeds and they rely on euphemisms while doing so in order to sound more polite and nonoffensive. HIPC helps to approach issues concerning poor countries more easily which means that the euphemism performs a tactical function. The following example illustrates the use of a euphemism HIPC for the sake of showing consolidation and support for poor countries:

* The new law prevents such companies taking nations that qualify for HIPC initiative to court in the UK to enforce payment in excess of what has already been agreed by other creditors in HIPC negotiations. The HIPC scheme involves up to 90% of the country's debt being written off.

2. Another group of articles with five most frequent used euphemisms is articles on defence policy. This group consists of friendly fire, anti-personnel weapons, and enemy combatants.

a) friendly fire was originally adopted by the United States military. It is a euphemism for inadvertent firing towards one's own or otherwise friendly forces while attempting to engage enemy forces, particularly where this results in injury or death. The following example presents the usage of friendly fire in context:

* The Ministry of Defence last night admitted it was investigating whether two British servicemen killed in southern Afghanistan this week died as a result of friendly fire(guardian.co.uk 17 January 2009)[29].

It is obvious from this example that friendly fire performs a taboo function because this event usually causes death which is a taboo in nature. Thus, the euphemism is used in order to make this issue sound less unpleasant.

b) anti-personnel weapons is a euphemism for nuclear weapons or, in other words, weapons which cause people's death and in which buildings are allowed to survive. Addressing these weapons directly as `people killers' would cause greater society's dissatisfaction and resistance due to their disastrous consequences. Thus, in order to avoid the taboo words `nuclear weapons' or `people killers' politicians use anti-personnel weapons instead. The following example illustrates how this euphemism might be used: * Intended primarily as anti-personnel weapons, cluster bombs open up in mid-air to release dozens of individual devices, known as bomblets, which scatter across a wide area(guardian.co.uk 3 December 2008) [29].