EUPHEMISTIC SYMBOLSPEAK IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL SPOT(S)
Alina-Mirela Pascu 
Dunărea de Jos University of Galați, Romania
Abstract
The account presented in this paper combines insights from verbal-centric and visual theories in arguing that Political Campaign Discourse exploits multimodal manipulation, with specific reference to American presidential advertisements. Symbolspeak, or deliberate distortion of reality designed via manipulation of (visual) language and other symbols, is a ubiquitous semiotic production in multimodal meaning making environments such as Political Advertising. The present work employs a theoretical splicing that builds upon politeness theory (Brown and Levinson 1987) with features of Intersemiotic Complementarity (Royce 2007) and a critical multimodal approach (Ledin and Machin 2020) to identify and analyse visual-with-verbal euphemistic symbolspeak across several layers of presidential campaign discourse (Benoit 1999, van Dijk 2006). Specifically, the article investigates American Presidential Campaign Ads proving multimodal manipulation based on two primary focuses: firstly, by turning the spotlight on the concept of euphemistic symbolspeak as an integrated multimodal manipulative tool in presidential campaigning. Secondly, by triangulating a (systemic) functional multimodal critical discourse study and applying this multidisciplinary framework to a representative sample, i.e. the 2020 Biden sponsored spot tagged Climate Change. The overall aim is to identify, analyse visual-with-verbal euphemistic symbolspeak representations constructed through multimodal and discursive strategies along with visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity, and to unpack the legitimation of stereotypes reflected on sociocultural structures.
Keywords: Multimodal manipulation; Visual euphemistic symbolspeak Presidential campaign spot; (Systemic) functional multimodal critical discourse analysis.
References
Primary sources
A. Webliography
The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign Commercials 1952-2024. www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2020/climate-change. [accessed January 7, 2022].
Secondary sources
A. Bibliography
Arnheim, R. (1969/2004). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1969).
Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots. A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements, 1952-1996. USA: Praeger Publishers.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cappelen, H., & Dever, D. (2019). Bad language. Contemporary introductions to philosophy of language. U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum, 41(5), 545-547. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor (2nd ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
De Saussure, L., & Schulz, P. (Eds.). (2005). Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century. Discourse, language, mind. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
De Saussure, L. (2005). Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics. Preliminary hypotheses. In De Saussure, L., & Schulz, P. (Eds.). Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century. Discourse, language, mind. (pp. 113-145). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Forceville, C. (2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola, & A.J.M. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown. Multisemiotic issues (pp.56-74). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245341_4
Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal communication. Applying the relevance principle. Oxford University Press.
Fox, R. F. (Ed.). (1994). Images in language, media, and mind. Illinois. USA: National Council of Teachers of English.
Fox, R. F. (2000). MediaSpeak: Three American voices. USA: Praeger.
Galasinski, D. (2000). The language of deception. A discourse analytical study. Sage Publications, Inc.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 41-58.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Heller, A. (2016). Critical theory, value reflexivity and horizons of modernity. Retrieved from agepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Doi: 10.1177/0725513616654789. [Accessed October 8, 2021].
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York: Longman. In Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: methodology and design (2nd ed.) (p. 233). New York: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London Hodder Education.
Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2020). Introduction to multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc: Oxford, London.
Lutz, W. (1990). Doublespeak: From “revenue enhancement” to “terminal living”. How government, business, advertisers, and others use language to deceive you. Harper Perennial: New York.
Lutz, W. (1996). The new doublespeak: Why no one knows what anyone’s saying anymore. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Machin, D. (2016). Introduction to multimodal analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc: Oxford, London.
Mackay, R. R. (2013). Legitimation by multimodal means: A theoretical and analytical enquiry with specific reference to American political spot advertisements (PhD Thesis, The University of Edinburgh). Retrieved from: https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/9716. [Accessed October 5, 2021].
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315750606
Mairal, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
O’Halloran, K. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication. 7, 443-475. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208096210
Partington, A., & Taylor, C. (2018). The language of persuasion in politics. An introduction (2nd ed.). London &New York: Routledge.
Pascu, A.-M. (2022). Symbolspeak in political discourse. Campaigning through loaded words. Analele Universității ,,Dunărea de Jos” din Galați, Fascicula XXIV, Anul XV, Lexic comun / lexic specializat, 1(27), p. 162-176.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health services research, 34(5), 1189-1208.
Perez Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Perez Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., & Ford, S. (2021). Unpacking creativity. The power of figurative communication in advertising. Cambridge University Press: UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108562409
Rank, H. (1976). Teaching about public persuasion: Rationale and a schema. In D. Dieterich (Ed.), Teaching about doublespeak (pp. 3-19). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Royce, T. (1999). Visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity in the Economist magazine (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading United Kingdom). Retrieved from: http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/Print/Theses/RoyceThesis. [Accessed October, 24 2021].
Royce, T. D. (2007). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In T. D. Royce, & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63-109). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rutledge, K. E. (1994). Analyzing visual persuasion: The art of duck hunting. In R. F. Fox (Ed.), Images in language, media, and mind (pp. 204-218). Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D., (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
Steen, G. (Ed.). (2018). Visual metaphor. Structure and process. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society,17(2), 359-383. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Van Winkle, K. (2016). Advancing a critical framework for the identification and analysis of visual euphemisms in technical communication visuals (PhD Thesis, Texas Tech University USA). Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/2346/73669. [accessed October, 17 2021].
Webliography
Chan, C. (2014). Gun deaths in Florida. Available from:< https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-in-florida-increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014-2> [January 5, 2022].
Engel, P. (2014). This chart shows an alarming rise in Florida gun deaths after ‘stand your ground’ was enacted. Available from:< https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-in-florida-increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014-2> [January 5, 2022].
How to cite this article: Pascu, A.-M. (2024). Euphemistic symbolspeak in American presidential spot(s). Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 17(3), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2024.17.3.6
For details on subscription, go to: http://jolie.uab.ro/index.php?pagina=-&id=19&l=en