Non-literal language is a highly controversial notion in academic discourse. The discursive turn in academic discussion of rhetoric was marked by the works of structuralists Claude Levi-Strauss and Roman Jacobson, the formalist Hayden White, the poststructuralist Jacques Derrida, and cognitive semanticists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, to name a few. The central proposition of this contemporary trend is that rhetorical forms are deeply and unavoidably involved in the shaping of realities, and that language is not a neutral medium.

The analysis of a text from different perspectives constitutes an interesting field for linguists as these perspectives reveal a variety of approaches to the language and to the intention of the author. Hence, text linguistics studies what words are used, how a message is conveyed and how a discourse is built upon [20; 151]. The final aim is to study what resources an author has used to fulfill his/ her purpose in the act of communication. In a way linguistic analysis describes the possible contextualization of the writer's message, as the text is taken as a discourse with a purpose. Yet, if the discourse is delivered orally, the perlocutionary act or effect on others must be immediate, so other elements must be taken into consideration. Indeed, the speaker wants a prompt response to his speech so the illocutionary force or intention must be strongly biased in the message. This is what M. Coulthard calls the "possible textualization of the writer's message" [31; 412]. Nevertheless, in formal speech the relationship between listener and speaker is not exactly face-to-face. The speaker gives a talk to a large audience and not to a single addressee. Similarly, we cannot overlook the fact that we are dealing here with a speech that is recorded. The speaker knows this and will try to be as formal as possible. So in a political speech expressed orally we are faced with a text with some elements taken from the written and some from the oral model.

Having outlined a purpose or critical standpoint for political discourse analysis, four broad categories should be taken into consideration: (1) lexicon, including vocabulary, technical words, imprecise words, euphemisms and loaded words; (2) grammar, including speech acts, implicature, syntax, pronouns and naming conventions; (3) rhetorical strategies, including the use of integrative complexity, rituals, metaphors and myths; (4) conversational tactics, including turn-taking and agenda-setting [24; 473].

Ruth Wodak distinguishes three components of a special language which is based grammatically on the common language, but which contains special features in the lexical, semantic and syntactic areas: lexicon, syntax and textual strategies of argumentation [39; 43].

Political lexicon consists of general vocabulary, technical words, imprecise words, euphemisms and loaded words [24; 476]. The first of these subcategories includes neologisms, novel phrasing and the elimination of words and phrases. Technical words are both old and new words with precise definitions relevant to a particular speech community [24; 477]. Imprecise words are the opposite, being vague to both speakers and hearers. Euphemisms are words with relatively clear definitions but meanings designed to conceal referents. Loaned words do not conceal so much as connote, imply or associate; they carry both a simple definition and an additional, more subtle meaning [24; 481].

The vocabulary of any political speech community will have a different number of linguistic distinctions for phenomena depending on their perceived importance. Detailed systems of terms develop for the areas of expertise, the features of habitat, the institutions and relationship, and the beliefs and values of a community [39; 130]. For instance, conservatives and moderates often speak of feminism, a term that, for their purposes, describes the women's movement in one broad stroke.

Technical political terms are often neologisms, but after a period of time they can become part of the vernacular [24; 482]. They remain technical, having precise and often complex meanings for a specific language community, but they lose their novelty.military terms in general, he argues, 'are complex for essentially the same reasons that contemporary scientific terms are complex-complex subjects require complex language'.

Imprecision is the opposite of technical specificity. Although it is possible to construct elaborate definitions of words like democracy and justice, speakers typically use these terms without providing or intending a clear meaning [26; 183]. Why would one use such empty words? There are at least three reasons. First, vagueness allows different listeners to infer contradictory meanings, causing them to agree with the speaker for entirely different reasons. Second, R. Wodak argues that extreme ambiguity can serve as camouflage: 'By using very abstract, undefined or very vague forms, unpleasant facts are less obvious, ignorance of the speaker is easier to hide and it is easier to deny a statement afterwards' [39; 113]. Finally, George Orwell claims that the repetition of meaningless and dead words anesthetizes listeners' brains, making them less critical and more receptive [34; 260].

The differences between euphemisms and loaded words is that the former disguise meanings, whereas loaded words provide additional meanings, including connotations, presuppositions, implications, attributions and associations [24; 481], For example, referring to peace activism as peacemongering carries with it the irrationality and savagery of its closest (and more familiar) lexical relative, warmongering. Similarly, Israel denotes not only a nation; for many, it is the entire idea of a Promised Land. By contrast, Rhodesia connoted colonialism, and the post-Independence government might have created Zimbabwe 1o bring more positive meanings to the nation's name.

Moving from lexicon to grammar, we can examine the ways in which political speakers form sentences and position words within them using implicature, syntactic devices, selective pronoun usage and naming conventions [24; 488].

Werner Holly identifies two varieties of political implicature - the running-board technique and the phantom meaning technique [39; 65]. The former carries an implied meaning that 'rides on the running-board; the interesting part of the meaning. gets to its destination, but it isn't allowed to sit in the car' [39; 71]. The latter is similar to the running-board technique, except that 'the basic meaning component is mere pretence, i. e. not intended at all. Rhetorical questions are another common form of implicature,

Syntax addresses complexity, generics, sequencing, the passive tense, the deletion of the subject, nominalization, negation and agency.

A common feature of political jargon is complex sentence structure. Roger Fowler insists that "complex syntax is a property of the discourse of knowledge and authority. Such complexity, particularly when disorganized, might befuddle the hearer, resulting in prestige attributions, and; vulnerability to irrational appeals' [26; 272]. Speakers can also use syntax to shift the listener's attention and responsibility attributions through sequencing, the passive tense, deletion of subject and nominalization [26; 275].

Political speakers are also prone to produce ritualistic discourse. Ritualistic political discourse can have the effect of providing instant commonality between the speaker and the community of listeners [37; 131]. For instance, the presidential inauguration, if performed according to discursive ritual, effectively associates the president with past inaugurals-some of the community's most salient previous common experiences.

In a somewhat similar manner, political metaphors can cause the listener to make unconscious assumptions. If the metaphor is used repeatedly, the listener may inadvertently begin go assume and act as if the two phenomena under comparison are, in fact, closely related. For instance, 'Simply labeling a problem a ''crisis" often mobilizes support' [20; 232]. The use of vivid metaphor can also 'create benchmarks that shape popular judgments of the success or failure of specific programs' [28; 126].

Simplistic, ritualistic, metaphoric and mythic discourse share the same democratic and undemocratic potential. Thus, one of the main claims is that modern political rhetoric is becoming simpler and more accessible for ordinary people. To achieve this "close political contact" with the mass audience, politicians and their supporters use definite linguistic technologies with the help of radio, TV, and Internet. Among them are the simplicity of speech (direct appeal to ordinary people), effective image-making strategy by visual and verbal language means, the creation of effective visual products of persuasion (political advertisements and cartoons). In spite of the universal character, all these technologies are culturally oriented and have some personal peculiarities as well. Those technologies are used in the process of the public opinion manipulation which is practically equal to the creation of political discourse.

Part 2. Theoretical approach to Euphemisms