The Language of Politics PDF - A-Level English Language Analysis

The Language of Politics ‘... a useful and original resource, with effective and focused class-based activities – invaluable for coursework – the commentaries are particularly helpful.’ Linda Varley, Principal Moderator for Coursework, NEAB, A-Level English Language, and Ashton-under-Lyne Sixth For...

The Language of Politics ‘... a useful and original resource, with effective and focused class-based activities – invaluable for coursework – the commentaries are particularly helpful.’ Linda Varley, Principal Moderator for Coursework, NEAB, A-Level English Language, and Ashton-under-Lyne Sixth Form College ‘This book is written in a very accessible style, with a range of well-chosen examples that will engage the imagination of students and teachers.’ Kay Richardson, School of Politics and Communications, University of Liverpool This accessible satellite textbook in the Routledge INTERTEXT series is unique in offering students hands-on practical experience of textual analysis focused on the language of politics. Written in a clear, user-friendly style by an experienced writer and teacher, it combines practical activities with texts, accompanied by commentaries which show how language is used by contemporary politicians and how it is part of the wider process of political discourse. There are suggestions for further research and activities. It can be used individually or in conjunction with the series core textbook, Working with Texts: A core book for language analysis. Aimed at A-Level and beginning undergraduate students, The Language of Politics: examines how both politicians and commentators describe political stances explores some of the most common linguistic features to be found in political speeches analyses electioneering through various written texts including manifestos, posters and pamphlets looks at how politicians answer questions both in the media and in parliament includes examples of political discourse from Britain, America and Australia has a comprehensive glossary of terms. Adrian Beard is Head of English at Gosforth High School in Newcastleupon-Tyne and Principal Moderator at the Northern Examining and Assessment Board for A-Level English Literature. His previous publications include The Language of Sport (1998) for the INTERTEXT series. The Intertext series Why does the phrase ‘spinning a yarn’ refer both to using language and making cloth? What might a piece of literary writing have in common with an advert or a note from the milkman? What aspects of language are important to understand when analysing texts? The Routledge INTERTEXT series will develop readers’ understanding of how texts work. It does this by showing some of the designs and patterns in the language from which they are made, by placing texts within the contexts in which they occur, and by exploring relationships between them. The series consists of a foundation text, Working with Texts: A core book for language analysis, which looks at language aspects essential for the analysis of texts, and a range of satellite texts. These apply aspects of language to a particular topic area in more detail. They complement the core text and can also be used alone, providing the user has the foundation skills furnished by the core text. Benefits of using this series: Unique – written by a team of respected teachers and practitioners whose ideas and activities have also been trialled independently Multi-disciplinary – provides a foundation for the analysis of texts, supporting students who want to achieve a detailed focus on language Accessible – no previous knowledge of language analysis is assumed, just an interest in language use Comprehensive – wide coverage of different genres: literary texts, notes, memos, signs, advertisements, leaflets, speeches, conversation Student-friendly – contains suggestions for further reading; activities relating to texts studied; commentaries after activities; key terms highlighted and an index of terms The Language of Politics Adrian Beard First published 2000 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001. © 2000 Adrian Beard All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Beard, Adrian, 1951– The language of politics / Adrian Beard. p. cm. -- (Intertext) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-415-20178-0 (pb) 1 English language--Discourse analysis. 2. Politicians--Englishspeaking countries--Language. 3. Political science--English-speaking countries--Terminology. I. Title. II. Series: Intertext (London, England) PE1422.B4 2000 420.1´41--dc21 99-23246 CIP ISBN 0-415-20178-0 ISBN 0-203-01911-3 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-17372-4 (Glassbook Format) The series editors: Ronald Carter is Professor of Modern English Language in the Department of English Studies at the University of Nottingham and is the editor of the Routledge INTERFACE series in Language and Literary Studies. He is also co-author of The Routledge History of Literature in English. From 1989 to 1992 he was seconded as National Director for the Language in the National Curriculum (LINC) project, directing a £21.4 million in-service teacher education programme. Angela Goddard is Senior Lecturer in Language at the Centre for Human Communication, Manchester Metropolitan University, and was Chief Moderator for the project element of English Language A-Level for the Northern Examination and Assessment Board (NEAB) from 1983 to 1995. Her publications include The Language Awareness Project: Language and Gender, vols I and II, 1988, and Researching Language, 1993 (Framework Press). Core textbook: Working with Texts: A core book for language analysis Ronald Carter, Angela Goddard, Danuta Reah, Keith Sanger, Maggie Bowring Satellite titles: The Language of Sport Adrian Beard The Language of Humour Alison Ross The Language of Advertising: Written texts The Language of Fiction Angela Goddard Keith Sanger The Language of Poetry John McRae The Language of Politics Adrian Beard The Language of Newspapers Danuta Reah Language and Gender Angela Goddard Related titles: INTERFACE series: Variety in Written English Tony Bex The Discourse of Advertising Guy Cook Language, Literature and Critical Practice David Birch Literary Studies in Action Alan Durant and Nigel Fabb A Linguistic History of English Poetry Richard Bradford English in Speech and Writing Rebecca Hughes The Language of Jokes Delia Chiaro Feminist Stylistics Sara Mills Language in Popular Fiction Walter Nash Twentieth-Century Poetry edited by Peter Verdonk Textual Intervention Rob Pope Twentieth-Century Fiction edited by Peter Verdonk and Jean Jacques Weber Literature about Language Valerie Shepherd Language, Ideology and Point of View Paul Simpson Language through Literature Paul Simpson Language, Society and Power Linda Thomas and Shân Wareing Language, Text and Context edited by Michael Toolan Patterns in Language Joanna Thornborrow..................................................................... Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives Ronald Carter The Routledge History of Literature in English: Britain and Ireland Ronald Carter and John McRae Dramatic Discourse Vimala Herman Text and Discourse Analysis Raphael Salkie Stylistics Laura Wright and Jonathan Hope Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 Unit one: Where do they stand? 3 Politics/politician/political/politicise 3 Left, right and centre 5 Satire: leaping and creeping 8 St Albion 13 Unit two: What do they stand for? 17 The problem of truth 17 Metaphor and metonymy 19 The power of metaphors 21 The power of metonymy 25 The power of analogy 27 The art of spin 29 Unit three: Making speeches 35 The soundbite age 37 The importance of three 38 Contrastive pairs 39 We are a grandmother 44 Lend me your ears 50 Unit four: Winning elections: slogans and posters Party slogans 58 Party posters 63 Saints and demons 65 57 Contents Unit five: Winning elections: national and local manifestos 73 Platform - the American Democratic Party 73 Manifestos - the British Conservative and Labour parties 77 Local campaigns 87 Reporting the results 91 Unit six: Answering questions Types of question 98 Confrontational questions 102 Parliamentary Question Time 105 Cheats and liars 111 Summary 114 Index of terms 117 References 121 viii 97 Thanks to Angela Goddard and Ron Carter for their help and encouragement; to Jean and Harry Beard for the Taunton data; to Gemma Garland at the Australian High Commission for her research and data; to the Labour Party for data; to the Liberal Democrats for data; to US Democrats Abroad for helpful suggestions. Also thanks to the A-Level English students at Gosforth High School, Newcastle-upon-Tyne for their help with trials of some of the material in this book. The author and publishers wish to thank the following for permission to reprint copyright material: Hope Pym at Private Eye for ‘St Albion’; Hansard for British Parliamentary speeches; The Australian High Commission for Australian Parliamentary speeches; Pete Davies and the Tessa Sayle Agency for the extract from This England; John Humphrys for ‘Tony Blair Interview’; The Labour Party for ‘1997 Manifesto’, ‘billboard posters’ and ‘Tony Blair poster’; The Liberal Democrats for ‘End the Punch and Judy Show’, ‘Hallam News’ and ‘Somerset Mail’. ix When the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson said ‘A week is a long time in politics’, he was referring to the fact that political success and failure were never far apart, and that a week could make all the difference either way. His words are equally relevant, though, to the sheer volume of material that is produced each week on political issues. To read, watch and listen to all the political output that the media produce each week would be impossible; we have to read selectively if we are to cope. This book, although titled The Language of Politics, is not claiming to be anything more than an introduction to some of the areas students might wish to research if they are interested in politics. Its data have been selected to illustrate certain broad principles, rather than to allow highly detailed analysis of specific political issues. With so many words produced by politicians and commentators, students rarely experience difficulty finding good contemporary data. What they do sometimes find difficult is knowing what to do with the data, and it is here that this book should help. The first unit explores some commonly held, and usually negative, perceptions of politics and politicians. It then examines how politicians describe their own political stance, and how others describe it for them, before looking at how satirical writers have attacked political systems and figures. The second unit focuses on some semantic issues. It looks at the way political discourse uses metaphor, metonymy and analogy, and what this usage says about the political culture that produces it. It also explores the idea of ‘spin’ and the way all meaning is relative. The third and fourth units focus on election campaigns. Unit 3 looks at slogans and posters, while Unit 4 analyses political manifestos, local campaigns and press reports. Unit 5 looks at various aspects of political rhetoric and speeches. The final unit, Unit 6, analyses the way politicians answer questions, both in parliament and when interviewed in the media. In The Language of Politics, the word ‘politics’ has been used in a highly specific way - it refers to the democratic systems which provide the governments of most of the economically developed nations of the world. Before beginning the analysis of how language is used in such systems, it is important to note the following: 1 Introduction Political systems exist which are different from, but not necessarily inferior to, those seen in the world’s most economically developed countries. Within these economically developed countries there are those who question and challenge the assumptions upon which their political systems are based. These systems are called democratic, but are rooted very deeply in traditional power structures, involving issues of gender, race, class and culture. This means that this book, because it is going to concentrate on the world of professional power politics, is only looking at part of the picture, albeit a significant part. Essentially it is going to look at the language of an occupation - that of the professional politician - in the same way that we might look at the language of the medical or legal profession. Looking at the language of politics as an occupation is important because it helps us to understand how language is used by those who wish to gain power, those who wish to exercise power and those who wish to keep power. 2 Where do they stand? Politics/politician/political/politicise Few words in English carry such negative connotations as the word ‘politician’. Connotation refers to the level of meaning based on associations we attach to words, whereas denotation is the referential meaning, the barest core of a word’s meaning. A denotative definition of the word ‘politician’ might be something like ‘a person who is practically engaged in running a country, district or town’ but the connotations surrounding the word ‘politician’ are nearly always negative, often strongly so. Brewer’s Dictionary of Politics, as might be expected of a dictionary on a single topic, has a very long entry for the word ‘politician’. It begins with the following: politician: A practitioner of the art of politics, essential to the working of human society but frequently despised by those outside the political arena; indeed the word is sometimes a term of abuse. Brewer’s Dictionary is dedicated solely to words from the field of professional politics, and is aimed at readers who are likely to be interested in the subject, so there are a number of words here which attempt to give a positive gloss to the word politician. A ‘practitioner’ of something carries connotations of professionalism doctors are in practice. Describing politics as an ‘art’, which is ‘essential’, also 3 Where do they stand? places the politician in a good light, doing work which is skilful, creative and necessary for the good of ‘society’, for the good of us all. Even this dictionary, though, has to concede that politicians are frequently despised, although the qualification that the despisers come from ‘outside the political arena’ suggests that they are not really qualified to talk - that only politicians really know the truth about what they do. This suggestion that politicians are somehow sinister, devious figures goes back a long way. Hotspur in Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 1 says of his opponent Bolingbroke: I am whipt and scourg’d with rods Nettled, and stung with pismires [ants], when I hear Of this vile politician. while King Lear says to the blinded Gloucester: Get thee glass eyes And like a scurvy politician, seem To see the things thou dost not. Because the word ‘politician’ carries such negative connotations, another word is required for those few politicians who achieve, and sustain almost universal popularity. If the word politician carries such a stigma, then what can we call figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela whose reputations are largely untainted with the usual connotations of deviousness? One word often used to describe them is ‘statesman’, a word which carries connotations of wisdom, vision, dignity - and also maleness (although even this word has undergone change in its meaning: in the early nineteenth century it carried connotations of cunning). The French President Georges Pompidou summarised in the 1960s the different connotations of the words ‘politician’ and ‘statesman’. He said (reflecting the assumption at the time that only men gained high office) ‘A statesman is a politician who places himself at the head of the nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.’ The noun ‘politician’ belongs to a family of words: ‘politic’, ‘politics’, ‘political’, ‘politicise’ are some others. The root form ‘politic’ comes originally from classical Greek, meaning ‘city’, ‘citizen’, ‘civic’, but even Greek philosophers like Plato described politics as ‘nothing but corruption’. The original sense of the word, of being concerned with people and the lives they lead in organised communities, was reflected by George Orwell who said in his essay Politics and 4 Where do they stand? the English Language (1946) ‘All issues are political issues.’ He too, however, viewed politics negatively, for he continued by saying ‘and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia’. The idea that politics refers broadly to people and the lives they lead in organised communities rather than more narrowly to the battleground of conventional party politics became especially prominent in the 1960s. Feminists, for instance, talked of sexual politics; in using this term they were arguing that culture and ways of behaviour, including how we use language, have to be examined and changed. In this sense, then, to politicise an issue is a positive move - it is to subject it to rigorous and careful analysis and to act upon the subsequent findings. Politics, to feminists, involves far more than electing a government or voting for representatives; it involves a complete and thorough analysis of the way gender issues work in society. This was expressed at the time in the slogans ‘the personal is political’ and ‘the political is personal’. To describe an issue as ‘political’, in this usage of the word, is to demand a serious analysis and recognise the need for change; those who seek such analysis and change will often urge those close to the issue to become ‘politicised’. To talk of the politics of food production, for example, suggests that there is something wrong with the way food is currently produced, something wrong with the systems which support that production, and that changes must be made. The politics of sport includes analysis of the changing social and economic structure of professional sport. Eventually the distinctions between the use of the words ‘politics/ political/ politicise’ described here and the narrower sense of politics as the process of government can become blurred - if pressure groups seeking to politicise an issue are successful in raising awareness, then professional politicians are often quick to add the issue to their own lists of concerns. Left , right and centre Politics, like all spheres of social activity, has its own code, a term used by linguists to refer to a language variety particular to a specific group. Later in this book there will be detailed analysis of some of the linguistic rituals, involving vocabulary, grammar and discourse, which are significant features of various political activities. This introductory chapter, however, will begin by looking at some of the most common political terms and metaphors which are used by both politicians and commentators. 5 Where do they stand? Key words to describe, in simple terms, the political alignment of individuals or their parties are ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’. These words originate in a metonymic use, from French politics just before the French Revolution. (For a further discussion of metonymy, see Unit 2.) In the Estates-General, those who supported the King’s policies sat on the right, while his opponents sat on the left. Thereafter the word ‘left’ has come to refer to socialist or radical groups, the word ‘right’ to conservative and nationalist groups. Once these words gained currency, a term was therefore needed for those who were somewhere between the two groups in their politics these politicians were said to belong to the ‘centre’. Politics is rarely as simple as groups of three, however, and there have been many gradations of left, right and centre used in an attempt to place political friends and opponents. Those with strong views to the left or right, for example, are known as ‘left/right-wingers’, ‘wingers’ coming originally from battle (those on the edge) and more recently from sport. Those who hold less radical views are sometimes called ‘left-of-centre’ or ‘right-of-centre’. Where your politics are positioned, however, is not as simple as it may appear, because there is no absolute, objective measure of where on the political scale, from left to right (or right to left), your ideas and opinions place you. Instead there are terms that you might use about yourself, with positive connotations as you see them, and terms that might be used about your position, that may be less positive. The same description can carry different connotations, depending on the views of who uses them and who receives them: politicians may be pleased to call themselves ‘left-wingers’, whereas their opponents may use the same term critically; equally, to be in the centre may be seen positively or negatively. One of the problems with using these terms of political positioning is that it is very hard to find a vocabulary that describes them neutrally, without connotations, whether positive or negative. How do you describe the views of those on the wings of politics? To call a view ‘extreme’ carries critical connotations; to call a view ‘strong’ does not necessarily place someone on one of the political wings those in the centre will claim that their views are ‘moderate’ when judged on the left/right scale, but are ‘strong’ in terms of the conviction with which they are held. The word ‘radical’ can be equally troublesome: in the sense of getting to the root of something, it too can be applied to/claimed by politicians of all persuasions. It seems, then, that all the terms that are used in an attempt to place politicians and their views into categories carry connotations, and that these connotations differ depending on who is using them. Some politicians are proud to be seen as having views that place them on the wing of their party. The same politicians, 6 Where do they stand? however, may criticise an opponent for being on the opposite wing, this time using the term with negative connotations. As political groupings emerge, so new words are used to describe them. In the 1980s the Conservative Party ruled Britain with a large majority, and this led, as it often does, to division within its ranks. Those in the party who did not support Mrs Thatcher were called ‘wets’ by their opponents, a term of abuse used in public schools for those who lack courage. Adapting the metaphor, her supporters were proud to call themselves ‘dry’. In time, though, the wets became more than happy with the term used to describe them and even used it themselves. This repeated a common feature of political language - terms of abuse become established and lose their negativity. The word ‘Tory’, originally used by English settlers in Ireland to refer to the Irish who were attacking them, was initially used as a term of abuse when applied to a group of British politicians in the eighteenth century. Eventually, though, the word became the official name of the party and is still used today, both about Conservatives and by them. While the Conservatives were using metaphors of liquid to describe their position within the party, the Labour Party used metaphors of solidity. Radical members belonged to the ‘hard left’, less radical to the ‘soft left’. In 1997, the Labour Party won a large majority. Its leaders had coined the term ‘New Labour’ to describe itself and its policies, partly to get away from the metaphor of soft/hard with its possible negative connotations. Those in the party who opposed some of the new policies called themselves ‘Old Labour’, hoping to construct connotations surrounding ‘old’ which would involve ideas of true heritage and honesty to the past, rather than being outdated or obsolete. Where you stand - the label which you attach to yourself, or the label that is attached to you, or both - is very significant in politics. In addition to being convenient forms of quick reference for journalists and commentators, labels often say a great deal about the ideological values of those who use them. They are badges of belonging for politicians when they use them to describe themselves, but can carry either positive or negative connotations when used about them by others. Activity The following terms are all used as political labels. Although a number can be used as adjectives, for the sake of this activity they are all used as nouns. For each category, rearrange the order of the words so that you have 7 Where do they stand? a list which begins with the most negative connotations and moves to the most positive. There is no correct answer to this activity, so having come up with your own lists, if possible compare them with others to see at what points you agree/disagree and why this is so. (a) government, regime, junta, democracy, dictatorship, faction, one-man rule – used as nouns to describe forms of government (b) revolutionary, fundamentalist, dissident, zealot, critic, partisan, militant, separatist, paramilitary, protester, liberator – used as nouns to describe opponents of those in power (c) militant, hawk, dove, extremist, radical, moderate – used as nouns to describe strength of attitude to a political issue Another type of political label is that which is attached to a specific political figure. These can begin life as satirical jibes, but then shift in connotation and be seen as complimentary. When Margaret Thatcher was first referred to as ‘The Iron Lady’ she was being depicted as narrow and inflexible, but the term became approving when it was seen to represent qualities of toughness and resolve. Sometimes too a particular policy or policies are given a label, named after the politician deemed to be most responsible for its development: examples include ‘Reaganomics’, ‘Thatcherite’, ‘Blairite’. Activity 1 2 3 Research as many terms as possible for the various groupings in Northern Ireland – see in particular what they call themselves and what their opponents call them. By using a recently published dictionary, which will be found in most libraries, find definitions for the following political labels: Reaganomics, Thatcherite, Blairite. Political labels come and go as politicians experience their often fleet ing moments of fame. Keep a list of such labels, for policies and people, as you work with the units in this book. Satire: leaping and creeping At the start of this unit, we saw how politicians are often seen in a negative light. We then looked at how politicians describe themselves and each other, and how 8 Where do they stand? political commentators, who are engaged in detailed analysis, attempt to place politicians and their views. The final part of this unit looks at how politics and politicians are presented through the means of satire. Satire has been defined in various and often complex ways, but essentially satire involves the ridicule of either (a) individual politicians, or (b) political parties/ institutions/nations, or in extreme cases (c) the whole human race. Whereas humour evokes laughter as an end in itself, satire aims to use laughter as a weapon, pointing out folly and by implication suggesting that political behaviour should change. There are many examples of satire which offer language students opportunities for research: in written form these range from classical literary works, such as Gulliver’s Travels and the poems of Pope, to contemporary writings in satirical magazines. Meanwhile in the contemporary media and on stage there are many satirical works, ranging from full-blown plays through stand-up comics to quiz shows. Whatever form or forms of satire you choose to explore, it is important as linguists to ensure that you look not only at what or who is being attacked, but also at how the satire works through its use of language and form. Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels was first published in 1726. As with many satirical works, on one level it depends upon parody for its effect. Parody is imitation of the language used by a particular writer or within a certain genre. At the time Swift wrote his book, travel writing was a popular genre, with travellers describing their adventures in ever more exotic and undiscovered locations. Using the naïve and unsophisticated Gulliver as his narrator, Swift sends him to increasingly bizarre territories, beginning with the little people of Lilliput and ending with the country of the Houyhnhnms, a land ruled by horses. Satire places the reader in a particularly crucial position. Not only must they recognise features of the genre being parodied, but they must also ‘translate’ the ideas from the parody to a different and more significant meaning. They can only do this translating, though, if they have the knowledge which lets them make the connection with what the writer is really referring to. So when Gulliver tells us that in Lilliput important men are given rewards for ‘leaping and creeping’ over or under a stick held by the King, we the readers have to work out that Swift is attacking the way power and honours are given not to the cleverest, but to those who are most adept at flattery. The key word ‘creeping’, with its obvious double-meaning, alerts us to this fact. In addition, most contemporary readers of Swift would have known that at that time such honours were particularly numerous. 9 Where do they stand? Activity On his first voyage, Gulliver visits Lilliput, where the inhabitants are only six inches high. As Gulliver describes the political systems of these tiny creatures, it soon becomes clear that Swift is in fact describing the political systems of England at that time. Blefuscu, the neighbouring island constantly at war with Lilliput, thus represents France. Read the following (edited) extract from Chapter 4 of A Voyage to Lilliput, and then discuss the following questions. 1 2 3 10 The Tramecksan and Slamecksan represent the Tories (or High Church party) and the Whigs (Low Church party), the two political parties of the time in England. Why is the idea of size important to the satirical effect? What satirical points about political parties are made by Swift, and how does he make them? The controversy over the breaking of eggs represents the conflict be tween Catholic and Protestant churches in England over the previous two hundred years. What satirical points about religious divisions is Swift making, and how does he make them? Where do they stand? Te x t : G u l l ive r ’s Tr ave l s One morning, about a fortnight after I had obtained my liberty, Reldresal, Principal Secretary (as they style him) of Private Affairs, came to my house... I offered to lie down, that he might more conveniently reach my ear; but he chose rather to let me hold him in my hand during our conversation. He began... ‘... for above seventy moons past, there have been two struggling parties in this Empire, under the names of Tramecksan and Slamecksan, from the high and low heels on their shoes, by which they distinguish themselves... The animosities between these two parties run so high, that they will neither eat nor drink, nor talk with each other. We compute the Tramecksan, or High-Heels, to exceed us in number; but the power is wholly on our side. We apprehend his Imperial Highness, the heir to the Crown, to have some tendency towards the High-Heels; at least we can plainly discover one of his heels higher than the other which gives him a hobble in his gait.... Our histories of six thousand moons make no mention of any other regions, than the two great Empires of Lilliput and Blefuscu. Which two mighty powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate war for six and thirty moons past. It began upon the following occasion. It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs before we eat them, was upon the the larger end: but his present Majesty’s grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our Histories tell us there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown.... It is computed that eleven thousand persons have, at several times, suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end. Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the Emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Brundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text: for the words are these; That all true believers shall break their eggs at the convenient end.’ 11 Where do they stand? Commentary The description of Gulliver holding Reldresal in his hand reminds the reader that on one level we are reading about tiny, insignificant creatures. The satire in part works because we the readers realise that these tiny people, with their fanciful titles and their petty factions, are in fact representations of the way our political systems in the big world are organised. So if these people are tiny and petty in their political affairs, then so are we. Reldresal talks with the utmost seriousness, finding nothing strange in what he says, and this effect is heightened by the way that Gulliver too accepts all this without comment. The essentially flat narrative leads the reader to work at the real significance of what is written. The idea of size continues to be important when Swift uses high and low heels as the way the parties distinguish themselves. In their eyes, they are big differences, but in our eyes we would hardly recognise there was any difference at all, as the Lilliputians are only six inches tall. At the same time, though, we know that the Lilliputians are the same as us, so our political party differences have to be seen as just as trivial. Although Swift was writing about Tories and Whigs in the 1720s, the satire still works now. Reldresal pompously talks of being in the more powerful party, despite this party being less numerous – Swift could be implying some sort of corruption here. Meanwhile the heir to the throne clearly wants to have it both ways; despite what Reldresal claims, the reader is aware that the heir is keeping in with both parties while at the same time to us he is appearing ridiculous. Just as the idea of the size of a heel is ridiculously trivial, so is the issue of which end you break on a boiled egg, especially when the egg will be so tiny to our eyes. In this section it is possible to make a direct translation between the satirical picture presented by Swift (via Reldresal talking to Gulliver) and actual historical events, although the satire is just as effective without doing this. So ‘his present majesty’s grandfather’s’ accident with an egg can be translated into Henry VIII’s falling out with the Catholic Church and the rise of Protestantism in Britain. What follows is a history of death, censorship, discrimination and war. The real point of this extract, though, comes at the end. While still using Reldresal as the narrator, talking to Gulliver, Swift places in the foreground his own interpretation of what the Brundecral (or Bible) really says. Despite being a Protestant clergyman himself, Swift makes it clear that 12 Where do they stand? religious faith is possible without schism, and that believers should be able to get on and worship as they wish: ‘all true believers shall break their eggs at the convenient end.’ The word ‘true’ is especially important here, although on first reading its significance may be missed. ‘True believers’ are not those who rush to fight other sects, but those who allow religious toleration and accept that others may legitimately hold different views. It has sometimes been said that although satire amuses, it changes nothing. Swift’s clever attack on political factions and religious strife remains relevant today, which suggests that while the satire remains potent, so do the vices that it attacks. St Albion The magazine Private Eye has for many years published a regular fortnightly feature which satirises the British Prime Minister of the time. One of the best known of these features was the Dear Bill series in which fictional letters were written by Margaret Thatcher’s husband Denis to his golfing friend. Through these letters Thatcher was presented as a strong, often tyrannical figure, married to a man who had little time for politics or politicians. When Labour won the general election in 1997, Private Eye chose to present Tony Blair as the vicar of a parish called St Albion (Albion is a word sometimes used instead of Britain). Each fortnight, the vicar publishes a parish newsletter, which refers satirically to political events that have recently taken place. Activity In the text printed overleaf, the Rev. Blair writes about the Third Way. The real Tony Blair had just announced that ‘The Third Way stands for a modernised social democracy, passionate in its commitment to social justice, but flexible, innovative and forward-looking in the means to achieve it.’ Read the text carefully and then discuss the following questions: 1 2 What features of parody can you detect here? Unlike the extract from Gulliver’s Travels, this text specifically satirises an individual politician. From reading this text, what satirical picture of Tony Blair emerges? What linguistic evidence have you used to de duce this? 13 Where do they stand? Text: St Albion Parish News ST ALBION PARISH NEWS Hi, there! As you can imagine, I’ve had a huge postbag this week, with all of you asking me the same question: “Vicar, what is the Third Way?” Well, let me begin by telling you what it isn’t! The Third Way isn’t just some mishymashy compromise, neither one thing nor the other! Nor is it just some slick slogan dreamt up by advertising men to pull the wool over people’s eyes! No, it is something which goes right to the heart of everything that our new St Albion’s is about! ] What it isn’t is just some halfway house, a fudge between two difficult choices! In the old, traditional way of looking at things, there were only two paths in life. One was the steep and stony path leading up to righteousness. The other was the broad and easy road going down to “hell”, as it used to be called! But now I think we can all see that there is a third alternative, one that gets the best of both worlds! The point about the Third Way, as I call it, is that it is steep, but not too steep; broad but not too broad; one that neither goes up nor down, but runs level, in a sensible, realistic, modern way! The fact of the matter is that this is what most people these days are looking for, and it is what we at the new St Albion’s are going to give them! So, join me, as we travel along life’s Third Way! And why not pop in on Sunday to sing along with the new chorus that I shall be accompanying on my guitar! “There’s a third way dawning, Yes, a third way dawning. There’s a third way dawning And it’s coming in themorning!” 14 Incumbent: Rev. A.R.P Blair MA (Oxon) While I am on the subject of the Third Way, let me just show you how it works in practice from one or two recent examples in my own life! There was thesilly squabble between two neighbours, Mr Netanyahu and Mr Arafat, who were both claiming to own the same allotment. This had been going on for years. I couldn’t watch it happen any longer, so I called them both into the vicarage and said, “Look! Why can’t you two just get it sorted, like Mr Adams and Mr Trimble have done? Why don’t you just shake hands and make it up?” Both of them wanted it their way. But I showed them that there was a third way, which would have solved all their problems! Never mind that, as soon as my back was turned, Mr Netanyahu set fire to Mr Arafat’s potting shed. At least I had showed them the way — the third way! Similarly, when I was leading the parish ecumenical European outreach team, there was a very nasty disagreement over who should be our treasurer. The French clergyman, Cardinal Chirac, was determined to have his own way about this. Everyone else wanted our Dutch friend, Pastor Duisenberg, to have the job. So I showed them that there was a third way! They could both have the job on a time-sharing basis, with the Frenchman having it most of the time! When we were all having coffee afterwards, everyone came up to thank me for doing a super job. As they all said, “We can’t believe what you did in there, vicar. We won’t forget this in a hurry!” And what about those “fat cats” we hear so much about nowadays? Once again, there are two oldfashioned views about this. One is that some local businessmen are too rich and are exploiting the poor people in our community. The other is that, without these rich people, there would be no jobs and everybody would be poor. But isn’t the truth somewhere inbetween? It usually is. It’s that third way again! So what better opportunity for me to give a big welcome to the newest member of our St Albion’s team, Mr Sainsbury, who has stepped down from his old job running the supermarket in the High Street, to devote his time to helping the groupministry here in all its good work. In the stirring words of that muchloved old hymn, “There’s a third way to Tipperary, There’s a third way to go...” (adapted T. Blair) Yours, Where do they stand? Commentary Parody requires the reader to recognise certain linguistic and structural features that are found in a particular type of writing. So the satirical effect here depends in part upon the reader having some familiarity with parish newsletters, or at least the way in which the clergy tend to speak. Some of the features you may have noticed include the informal opening and closing, the direct appeal to ‘you’ as the constructed reader, the religious imagery (‘one was the steep and stony path...’), the lecturing tone (‘So, join me, as we travel along life’s Third Way!), the frequent use of exclamation marks to suggest a rather forced emphasis and the use of rhetorical questions (‘And what about those “fat cats” we hear so much about nowadays?’). The presentation of Blair as a vicar in itself suggests that he is to be seen as sanctimonious and holier than thou. He is also depicted as being pompous: the reference to his degree from Oxford, and his acknowledged adaptation of the ‘hymn’ are two examples. In saying what the Third Way ‘isn’t’, the ‘real’ author of the text gives clues as to how we should really see this new policy. If the fictional Blair says it is not ‘some slick slogan dreamt up by advertising men’, then we the readers are encouraged to believe that it is. Blair is also presented as being rather dictatorial, behind the apparent populist idea of giving people what they want: ‘The fact of the matter is that this is what most people these days are looking for, and it is what we at the new St Albion’s are going to give them!’ The reference to ‘new’ St Albion’s deliberately echoes the the renaming of Labour as New Labour. It was noted in the discussion of Gulliver’s Travels that satire sometimes makes reference to specific people and events. Here they are made obvious by the use of names: the Arab/Israeli conflict, the Irish situation and problems in the EEC are all referred to in a thinly veiled way. The Rev. Blair’s suggestion that he helped solve problems is obviously not true; he is depicted as ultimately ineffective, despite his self-congratulation. Extension There are many literary works which provide material for the analysis of politics and political systems. Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) is an early satirical work, which introduced the word ‘utopian’ into the English language. Originally written in Latin, it describes the political systems of an imaginary land and in the process comments on the politics of England at the time. 15 Many satirical novels are essentially dystopian – in other words, they depict, in an imaginative form, the worst of all worlds, and in the process highlight the writer’s fears about the politics of their time. The following are useful starting points for students who are interested in research in this area: Samuel Butler – Erewhon Aldous Huxley – Brave New World George Orwell – 1984 and Animal Farm Anthony Burgess – A Clockwork Orange Margaret Atwood – The Handmaid’s Tale Visual as well as verbal satire can be seen in political cartoons, which could form another potential area of research. What do they stand for? Aims of this unit This unit will focus in particular on how language tells us a great deal about the ideology of those who use it – including politicians, and those who report on the work of politicians. It will focus in particular on metaphor, metonymy, analogy and transitivity, all terms which will be explained as they are discussed. The problem of truth Politicians and other public figures often complain about bias in the media, about media ‘witch-hunts’: instead of reporting the truth, they claim, the media present a distorted picture which serves their own interests. The BBC is one particular focus for such complaints because it often claims to be impartial in its news reporting and concerned only with broadcasting the objective truth. Sometimes the complaints revolve around the fact that a story has been broken at all, at other times they concern the presentation of the story, including the language used. The philosopher A.J. Ayer wrote in 1936 that ‘the terms true and false connote nothing, but function... simply as marks of assertion and denial’. In other words, there is no such thing as absolute truth – what we call a truth is in fact an assertion which we ourselves believe in. By this definition truth is both relative and subjective. The whole idea of 17 What do they stand for? ‘truth’ is very problematic at the best of times, but when it relates to how a political story is reported then it is especially so. When a television news team report a story, they make a number of decisions which will affect how the story is received by the audience. Where they position the camera, the sequence in which they show events and the language they use will all determine the overall picture we get. In making these decisions they are reflecting an ideological view; there is no such thing as an unbiased report, no such thing as ‘neutral’ language. To say ‘The White House today threatened Saddam Hussein with military action over the UN inspectors affair’ (see below) gives a perspective which essentially favours the American position. It would be just as possible to present the story from different perspectives, from different ideological standpoints. This does not mean, though, that language is merely the tool of cynical manipulation; that because you can report the same story in different ways there are no such things as ethical or moral behaviour, that one political policy is no more fair and just than another. Language is a means of communication, a means of presenting and shaping argument and political argument is ideological, in that it comes from a series of beliefs. Language is not something somehow separate from the ideas it contains, but the way language is used says a great deal about how the ideas have been shaped. When analysing the language of a political text, therefore, it is important to look at the way the language reflects the ideological position of those who have created it, and how the ideological position of the readers will affect their response too. Philosophers distinguish between validity and truth in argument and this is a useful distinction to make here. A valid argument is one where the logic is correct; it does not have to lead to a ‘true’ conclusion. Equally, a ‘true’ conclusion can come from an invalid argument. This means that the relationship between language and truth is more complex than is sometimes thought. When a parent tells a child to ‘tell the truth’, it is a relatively straightforward matter. To expect that a political journalist, or a politician, can ‘tell the truth’ just as easily is much more problematic, because it fails to take account of the fact that both the creator and the receiver of the text bring ideological values to it. Indeed, it could be argued that clear personal attacks on politicians are seen by the audience as just that - personal attacks. Much less likely to be seen for what they are are the news reports which claim an objectivity they cannot possibly have. 18 What do they stand for? Metaphor and metonymy Both metaphor and metonymy are frequently used in the language of politics. They are only one aspect of political discourse, but they are useful starting points for looking at some of the ways in which political language operates. Metaphor refers to when a word or a phrase is used which establishes a comparison between one idea and another. When a politician is said to ‘take flak’ from an opponent, politics is being compared to warfare, with the politician metaphorically being shot at. On the other hand, it may be the politician who is ‘on the offensive, targeting’ his opponents by ‘launching an attack’ on their policies. Metonymy involves replacing the name of something with something that is connected to it, without being the whole thing. For example, the President of the United States, his government and advisors, are sometimes replaced by the much simpler term ‘The White House’, which is the presidential residence and administrative centre. Similarly, when an announcement is made by a member of the British royal family, it is often described as follows: ‘Buckingham Palace today denied claims that the royal family is out of touch with the people.’ In other words the building where they live - Buckingham Palace - replaces the name of the people who live there - the royal family. The above announcement without use of metonymy would read ‘The royal family today denied claims that they are out of touch with the people’ or ‘The Queen today denied...’ Activity The following text is taken from an imaginary news report about a music award ceremony. It has been deliberately constructed to show examples of metaphor and metonymy. If you are confident that you understand these concepts, cover up the commentary below and see how well you can (a) (b) Identify the examples of metaphor and metonymy, and Explain the comparisons that are being made. If you are less sure about these concepts, then read the commentary once you have read the text, and make sure that you understand the explanations. 19 What do they stand for? Text: Music Awards British music triumphed when home-grown bands swept the board at the World Pop Awards. The Albert Hall was treated to a feast of celebration as many of the world’s leading bands received their accolades. There was also a morsel of controversy when the Deputy Prime Minister was half-drowned by a water jug hurled by rising star Jake Thrower. Commentary Although some of the metaphors will have been easy to detect, others may have been less so because their metaphorical origins have become embedded in English. Goatly (1997) uses the term ‘inactive’ to describe metaphors which over time have become ‘lexicalised’ – defined in dictionaries with their new meaning. For instance, is the word ‘star’ used metaphorically here? Technically it is a metaphor, but we use the word so frequently to refer to famous people, that any dictionary would now include a reference to a celebrity as one definition of the word ‘star’. Metaphors are identified first. Examples of metonymy then follow: Metaphors: 1 triumphed: literally a victory procession, but here used to suggest suc cess. 2 home-grown: from the idea of gardening, but here meaning from this country. 3 swept the board: from a game such as chess or drafts, here meaning won everything. 4 treated to a feast: from food and eating, here meaning a large amount (and perhaps high quality). 5 leading: from the idea of being at the front of an army, a race, etc., here referring to success. 6 accolades: originally referring to being knighted with a sword, here re ferring to an award. 7 morsel: this relates back to the feast, this time meaning a small part. 8 half-drowned: a form of exaggeration, as really he got a bit wet. 9 rising star: light in the sky or famous person. 20 What do they stand for? Metonymy: 1 British music: a convenient phrase to use as a short form for saying ‘a large number of British bands’. British music cannot triumph, only individual bands can. 2 The Albert Hall: this is the venue, but it is the people inside it who are actually treated to the celebration. 3 a water jug: this is a more technical point, but it would be the water that would half-drown the Deputy Prime Minister, not the jug which contained it. The power of metaphors Recent work on semantics in English has investigated the place of metaphor in everyday speech (for example, Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Goatly 1997). Metaphor is deeply embedded in the way we construct the world around us and the way that world is constructed for us by others. An example of this process involves the metaphorical idea that a lesson is a journey: we take a difficult topic ‘step by step’; if we cannot conclude an idea we ‘go round in circles’; if we lose relevance we ‘go off in the wrong direction’; if we are successful in understanding we ‘arrive at a conclusion’; if we are unsuccessful we are ‘lost’ or ‘stuck’. Two common sources of metaphor in politics are sport and war, both of which involve physical contests of some sort. Both politicians themselves, and those who report politics, use these metaphors. Boxing metaphors are particularly common, conveying a sense of toughness and aggression, especially when an election is seen as a fight between two main protagonists who are nearly always male. When the British Election of 1997 was announced, one newspaper had the headline ‘The Gloves Are Off’, suggesting not just boxing, but a bare-knuckle fight. In the USA, baseball metaphors abound in politics: ‘a whole new ball game’, ‘a ball park figure’, ‘to play ball’, to be ‘back at first base’ and ‘spin’ (see below). These metaphors are increasingly used in British political discourse too, but baseball’s equivalent game, cricket, offers others: ‘to keep your eye on the ball’; ‘batting on a sticky wicket’; to be ‘stumped’ by or to ‘play a straight bat’ to a question. When Blair’s supporters in 1997 wanted to suggest that if he won, his government would act promptly on issues, they used a metaphor taken from warfare and promised to ‘hit the ground running’. This phrase originates in the idea of soldiers leaping from combat helicopters and running straight into action. After Ronald Reagan’s poor showing in a televised debate in 1984, his supporters 21 What do they stand for? promised a campaign of ‘damage control’. The word ‘campaign’ is itself a reference to battle, and in campaigns ‘political battles are won’, ‘leads are surrendered’. It is worth noting that this sense of politics being seen as a sort of warfare through the use of metaphors can be seen in reverse when real war is talked about. The shadow boxing of party politics, with its metaphors of battle, becomes much less gung-ho when real victims in real wars are to be explained away. In the 1990s dead civilians became ‘collateral damage’ in a form of political language which wanted to hide the horror, while the mass evacuation (and often murder) of civilians belonging to the other side became ‘ethnic cleansing’. Gibbs (1994) points out that metaphors from sport and war are ‘not just rhetorical devices for talking about politics, for they exemplify how people ordinarily conceive of politics... for instance metaphors from sports and war often delude people into believing that negotiation and compromise are forbidden by the rules.’ In other words, because so much language which surrounds political issues is rooted in metaphors of war, contest or sport - even if we are not always consciously aware of these roots - then we have no idea that politics can be anything other than confrontational, that it could in fact involve agreement and consensus. The key metaphors of politics involve concepts of enemies and opponents, winners and losers; they do not suggest that government could be achieved through discussion, co-operation, working together. Activity The text opposite is from a leaflet sent to voters in one British constituency during the election of 1997. The Referendum Party stood for one issue – that the British electors should have the chance to vote in a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Commission, an organisation with its headquarters in Brussels. 1 2 3 22 Look closely at the metaphorical language used in this extract. Look first at examples of metonymy. Then find the metaphorical references to war and say what they contribute to the persuasive power of the text. What other linguistic methods are used in an attempt to persuade the reader? Look for instance at the way pronouns are used, i.e. ‘you’, ‘we’, etc. Consider also the way graphological features such as highlighting parts of the text are used. How are the paragraphs connected to each other so that a cohesive argument is formed? What do they stand for? Text: Referendum Party 23 What do they stand for? Commentary Both the headline and the picture at the start of this leaflet use metonymy. Two place names are used to represent two parliaments – the London district of ‘Westminster’ for the British parliament and ‘Brussels’ for the European parliament. Brussels, as representation of the European parliament, is repeated in the picture. A sign hangs from the door of number 10 saying that the occupants have left and moved to Brussels. What this actually signifies is that, according to the Referendum Party, the British government (represented by ‘Number 10’) has given up its power by handing it over to the European parliament in Brussels. This picture therefore sums up, in symbolic form, the content of the whole message which follows. There are many metaphorical references to war: the Referendum Party is fighting a last-ditch battle to keep Britain free of external influence; ‘our’ fishing industry has been ‘destroyed’, ‘our’ businesses ‘swamped’ by an ‘army’ of bureaucrats. ‘Our’ government has already ‘surrendered’ too much – this word is used three times – but the party will ‘fight vigorously’ on ‘our’ behalf. All this suggests that this is an argument about a desperate battle to survive, that many valued ways of life have been lost and that this is the very last chance to save ourselves. Pronoun reference is always important in putting over a piece of political persuasion. The very first word ‘your’ gives an immediate sense that the reader is being addressed personally, although there is also a sense that ‘you’ is not just the single reader but also everyone in the country. Politicians often wish to suggest that even though they are trying to persuade us to a point of view, we already agree with them; thus the pronoun ‘we’ appears in the first paragraph and at numerous other points too. ‘We’ gives a sense of collectivity, of us all being in this together, so ‘we have been deceived’ in the past, but no longer. Later in the extract ‘we’ becomes the Referendum Party urging us to vote for them, as in ‘we ask you to lay aside your traditional party loyalty’. Contrast of comparison in adjectives and adverbials is called degree. Political parties like to stress the importance of their views, so not surprisingly a superlative form appears at once: this general election is ‘by far the most important’ in Britain’s history. This sense of degree is repeated later when the election is called ‘so crucial’. Verbs and adverbials are also very strong in their meaning: this is an issue which metaphorically ‘towers’ above party politics and we all ‘care passionately’ about having our views heard. As stated above, the picture gives, in metonymic form, the gist of the argument – that Britain has given in to Europe. Nonetheless the text needs 24 What do they stand for? to expand upon this and make it absolutely clear. Each paragraph has either one or two sentences and is carefully placed so that an argument is built up, leading to the inevitability of the final message – vote for the Referendum Party. The way a text develops and holds together is called cohesion. Cohesion in this extract is achieved, in particular, by the way many paragraphs open with clear connections to what has gone before. The word ‘and’ opens four paragraphs, suggesting an argument being continued, with ‘what’s more’ doing a similar job. In one case ‘already’ which opens paragraph two, is followed by ‘and already’ in paragraph three. ‘With these rights’ and ‘this is an issue’ show anaphoric demonstrative reference. The deictic words ‘these’ and ‘this’ act as anaphoric pointers. In other words, they point back to something that has already been mentioned. Cohesion is also maintained by the graphological device of bold type – every so often a step in the argument is signalled by the use of bold type. Inevitably the summation of the argument, the call to vote, is in bold print, and begins with the words ‘but now’ which indicate that something different has to happen this time because ‘we have been deceived for far too long’. Two other points worth noting are that although this is a political leaflet calling on people to vote in an election, the word ‘politician’ is, as seen in Unit 1, used as a term of abuse. None of this party’s candidates ‘is a politician, nor wishes to become one’. And the final call to vote, placing your country first, not only appeals to a sense of nationalism, but also echoes the famous World War One poster saying ‘your country needs you’. There are other areas that you may have noticed in your answers – the references to the other parties (but never in the bold print sections), the fact that deceitful opponents are ‘wrong’ but that ‘we realise the truth’, the ‘we’ referring not only to them, but to us the readers too. All of these contribute to a text whose major purpose is to persuade the reader to do just one thing – vote for the Referendum Party. The power of metonymy Earlier in this unit, the following was used as an example of metonymy: (a) ‘Buckingham Palace today denied claims that the royal family is out of touch with the people’ and the following was given as an alternative version without metonymy: (b) ‘The royal family today denied claims that they are out of touch with the people.’ It might, at first glance, seem as though there is not much difference between the two statements, but on closer investigation the meaning is not the same. In (a), the royal family, who are at the centre of the claims, do 25 What do they stand for? not themselves seem to speak. Indeed the speaking is done for them by a building which will be, in many minds, a large and impressive structure. In (b), though, they have to speak for themselves - it is they personally who have to deny what has been said about them. It can be argued that (a), therefore, gives a more sympathetic picture of the royal family than (b). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) give as an example of metonymy the phrases ‘she’s just a pretty face’, ‘there are a lot of faces out there in the audience’, and ‘we need some new faces around here’. Here the face as part of the human body stands for or represents the whole human body -this idea of part for whole is also sometimes referred to as synecdoche. Lakoff and Johnson go on to show that metonymic uses are not random, but systematic, in that they show how we organise our thoughts, actions and attitudes. An example of how this works can be seen in the way we use ‘face’ to represent the whole person. If you ask to look at a photo of someone, and are shown a facial portrait, then you will almost certainly be satisfied that you have seen the person. If, however, you are shown a picture of their legs, without the face, you would demand to see more. In other words in our culture we get our basic information about people from their faces, rather than their bodies. Metonymy, then, involves replacing the name of something with something that is connected to it, without being the whole thing itself; and in doing so it affects the audience’s perception of and attitude to the original thing. An example quoted at the beginning of this unit comes from a BBC news broadcast concerning growing tension between the USA and Iraq: ‘The White House today threatened Saddam Hussein with military action over the UN inspectors affair.’ The metonymy is where ‘the White House’ replaces ‘the president and his advisers’ and ‘Saddam Hussein’ replaces ‘the country/people of Iraq’. In this example the journalist writing the report has used metonymy in a way which gives a very favourable view of the American position. There is a distinct advantage for the president in not himself being named. Attacking a foreign country is dangerous, not something an individual would want to be held responsible for it is much better if the threat is reported as emerging from an impressive building which contains a suitably impressive collection of top people. On the other hand, by using Saddam Hussein to represent the country he ruled, it appears that he alone would suffer the results of the attack - innocent bystanders are not involved. When the news is more cheerful, however, involving success of some sort, then the president will be more than happy to be named in full. So when the USA contributed to peace talks in Ireland, the BBC reported: ‘President Clinton was urged by all sides to continue his efforts on behalf of peace in Ireland.’ 26 What do they stand for? The British equivalent for the White House is ‘Number 10’, standing for 10 Downing Street, which is the official residence of the Prime Minister. Hence ‘Number 10 today announced further changes to the Social Security system’ or ‘Number 10 today denied a split in party ranks.’ No building has contributed as much to the language of politics as the Watergate building in Washington. In 1972 the building, which housed the Democratic Party, was broken into by supporters of the Republican president Richard Nixon. This led to a major political crisis in the USA, culminating in the resignation and disgrace of the president. The whole long, drawn-out process became known as the Watergate scandal, the building’s name conveniently standing in place of detailed descriptions of very complex procedures. Since then, however, the suffix ‘gate’ has been used with increasing frequency, and ingenuity, to describe all sorts of scandals in most English-speaking countries. Where one text uses reference to another this is known as intertextuality. When President Carter’s brother Billy showed signs of alcoholism, it was known as ‘Billygate’. When local councillors in Doncaster, Yorkshire, were accused of malpractice, the Yorkshire Post called the scandal ‘Donnygate’. Scandal over the Prince of Wales’ relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles was known as ‘Camillagate’. When President Clinton was accused of having affairs with four different women during his presidency, the crisis was labelled ‘sexgate’ or ‘fornigate’. The latter worked on a number of linguistic levels: the word is a play upon the word ‘fornicate’, to have sex with; it contains the sound of the word ‘four’; the use of ‘gate’ suggests scandal. Even more intertextually complex was the headline at the same time which said ‘All the President’s Women.’ A famous film of the Watergate scandal was called All the President’s Men. So the link between Watergate and any scandal is taken a stage further by making a verbal play with the title of a film about the scandal. The power of analogy So far this unit has looked at examples of metaphor and metonymy, and how they can show the ideological positions of the users. Metaphor and metonymy operate at word or phrase level, establishing comparison between one idea and another. Sometimes, though, political argument involves comparison on a larger scale - this is known as analogy, and analogy shows ideological positions too. Analogy operates by comparing two objects of different types; but these two objects have certain elements in common. Objects of the first kind have a certain characteristic; 27 What do they stand for? it is not known if objects of the second kind have it or not, but by analogy we conclude that since objects of the two kinds have certain things in common, they may have other things in common as well. This may sound rather complicated, but in fact analogy is used frequently. In order to understand human behaviour, say aggression for example, researchers sometimes study animal behaviour in the wild -because monkeys react to stress in a certain way, this tells us something about human behaviour too, they argue. This can be schematised as follows: Objects of type x (i.e. monkeys) have certain properties (live in communities, sometimes fight) Objects of type y (i.e. humans) have similar properties (live in communities, sometimes fight) Objects of type x show stress under certain conditions Therefore objects of type y show stress under the same conditions. The ‘strength’ of an analogy depends very much on the degree of similarity between the objects being compared and whether they are similar in ways that are relevant to the argument being made. In the example above, some scientists would claim that humans and monkeys have lots in common and so, by analogy, how monkeys behave says a lot about human behaviour. Others would say, though, that human society is very different from primate society, so any comparison between the two is impossible. A favourite economic argument put forward by Margaret Thatcher used analogy: comparing the economy of the nation with the economy of an individual household, she said that just as it was dangerous for a family to run up a debt, so it was dangerous for a country to do the same. Therefore the government had to spend less than it might ideally want to. In the sense that it appealed to what people could readily understand - their own finances - it was a highly effective comparison. Many expert economists, though, said that economics on a national scale bear little resemblance to those on a personal level, and so her analogy was a false one. Her use of the family budget and a fear of debt as points of comparison showed that ideologically she held certain views about the typical family and its values. Commenting on a political scandal, a journalist wrote: ‘Wherever you have power you will have sleaze. It’s like a dog and fleas.’ The problem with this analogy is that there is no likeness between holding power and being a dog, however witty the analogy may sound. When analogies are used, therefore, the reader must not just accept them but must evaluate their strength as a piece of argument. 28 What do they stand for? Activity The following question was put by a broadcaster to an Irish Protestant politician who was objecting to the fact that he was not allowed to parade through a Catholic residential area. What are you making so much fuss about? I’m not allowed to enter Buckingham Palace and I don’t complain. Analyse the component parts of this analogy and say whether you think the analogy is weak or strong. The art of spin With ever increasing media coverage of politics, and competition among the media to give the most sensationalist portrayals of political events, political parties have increasingly used public relations experts to channel facts to the media, and to put the best possible construction on events. In the 1980s in America, these PR experts were labelled ‘spin-doctors’ by media commentators. The word ‘spin’ relates to baseball, putting spin on the ball being a pitcher’s technique in an attempt to fool or deceive an opponent. The word ‘doctor’ suggests a healer, someone who resolves a crisis (although as a verb it can also mean to cheat as in to doctor someone’s drink). Thus a ‘spin-doctor’ is someone who deceives, who presents a false picture to suit the politician - once again the activities of politicians are seen to be devious. It should also be noted that politicians do not admit to employing ‘spin-doctors’ themselves; they would refer to their press agent, or some such similar term. Nonetheless, they regularly complain about spin-doctoring when it is their political opponents who are putting out messages. How the spin is placed on a story will depend upon a number of things. These include: the overall political effect that is desired, either celebrating success or ridiculing failure; the way information is presented; and what metaphorical uses are brought in to influence the audience’s view of events. When OFSTED (the Office of Standards in Education in England) conducted research in 1997 into how well literacy was taught in London schools, they found that 66 per cent of lessons were satisfactory, and 33 per cent unsatisfactory. Their spin-doctors presented these findings by focusing on the fact that one in three lessons was inadequate. This led to headlines such as ‘Teachers fail pupils’ and ‘Reading standards plummet as inspectors find catalogue of failure.’ An alternative spin could have been put on 29 What do they stand for? the story, however, if the figures had been approached differently. If the main focus of the story had been on the two out of three lessons which succeeded, it might have led to headlines such as ‘Teachers raise literacy standards’, or ‘Literacy standards rise.’ As can be seen in the examples quoted above, spin often involves either claiming credit or distributing blame. One way of exploring how blame or credit are attributed is to look at the way transitivity works in a text. Transitivity involves looking at the language used to describe: what happens who the participants are (both those who do something and those affected by what is done) what the circumstances are. Blame or credit can be attributed, for instance, by either emphasising the role of a participant or by minimising it. This process can include the naming labels given to the participant as well as the grammatical foregrounding or backgrounding of their role. (Another helpful metaphor to describe this process is to talk of weight: at what points in a clause or sentence is the most weight applied?) One of the most obvious ways in which participants can be foregrounded, backgrounded or omitted entirely is by using either the active or passive voice. In simple terms this can be shown as follows: Chancellor announces tax cuts (active voice - Chancellor given prominence) Tax cuts announced by Chancellor (passive voice - less prominence given to Chancellor) Tax cuts announced (passive voice, actor deleted - no reference to Chancellor at all) Newspaper headlines are useful starting points for looking at how transitivity works. In July 1998 the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced substantial funding for health and education - far more money than political pundits had forecast. As far as headlines for this story went, there were essentially three possible ingredients: more money was made available for public services Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the announcement in Parliament 30 What do they stand for? health and education were the two services awarded most of the extra money. Which of these elements was given most weight, which was given least or even none at all, and the metaphorical associations raised by the choice of vocabulary give some clues as to the ideological/political position of the newspaper. BROWN GOES FOR BROKE IN 57BN SPENDING SPREE (Daily Telegraph) The Chancellor is here given a very formal naming label, his surname only. The main clause in the headline is ‘Brown goes for broke’; this is given most weight with a subject (Brown) who is actively doing something (goes for broke). The word ‘broke’ is a deliberate pun, because to ‘go for broke’ means risking everything, and to be ‘broke’ is to be without money. The amount of money is quoted, but it is additionally described as a ‘spending spree’, carrying connotations of profligacy, or carelessness. What the money is to be spent on is not mentioned at all; most people would support spending on health and education, but as they are not mentioned it is the ideas of going broke and of over-spending which are most emphasised. This analysis suggests that the Daily Telegraph is not a supporter of the Labour Party. 40BN AID FOR NHS/SCHOOLS (Newcastle Journal) This time the sum of money quoted is lower than in the Daily Telegraph. The money is ‘aid’ rather than a ‘spree’, and it is help that is being given to named good causes. So all the weight is placed upon a phrase which details the money and the recipients. The donor, though, is not named and there is no verb suggesting any action - there is an implied sense that the money has come from the government, but it has not been personalised in any way as belonging to the Chancellor. This paper appears to support the action that has been taken and can be assumed to be broadly supportive of the Labour Party. HAND OF GORD (the Sun) Understanding this headline involves an awareness of the phrase ‘hand of God’. This on one level might refer to the religious idea of the hand of God being generous, giving blessings, but it also strongly echoes the claim by the footballer Maradona that it was the ‘hand of God’ which intervened when he infamously punched the ball into the goal during a World Cup game between England and Argentina. The punning on God/Gord, which is at the heart of the headline, may possibly carry the 31 What do they stand for? implication that Gordon Brown is playing at being God, but overall this seems unlikely. Gord is a shortening of Gordon, so only one of the three possible ingredients is mentioned in this phrase, the main participant; there is no direct reference to money, certainly no amount, and no mention of the good causes. It would seem here that the Sun is most interested in the linguistic joke made by its headline; there is no obvious support or criticism of the Labour Party here, at least as far as the headline goes. It is also worth noting that metonymy is used here, if Brown’s hand is seen to stand for the Chancellor of the Exchequer being generous. Activity Exploring the way transitivity works, then, can help you to see how praise or blame are attributed and to understand the ideological values of the producers of texts. Following on from the examples quoted above, these headlines also appeared covering the same political story: SPEND, SPEND, SPEND BROWN SPLASHES OUT 40BN GORDON OPENS HIS WALLET HE’S JUST SPENT 56BN AND HE’S THINKING OF THE NEXT ELECTION Analyse the language of each headline and say what spin is put on the story in each case. There is no commentary for this activity. Extension Opinion polls are used by the media to assess public perception on political issues. They are used frequently in the run-up to elections to see how people are likely to vote, and they are used during the lifetime of a government to see how the public views the government’s performance. Using a carefully selected sample, the pollsters interview people about their views on various issues. The findings in part depend upon what questions are actually asked, and how they are phrased. The analysis of the figures often depends upon the political views of the journalist who interprets them, while the political parties interpret them in the way which makes them look most favourable. In other words, from the data provided, both journalists and politicians apply their own particular spin. The following questions and figures are based upon a typical poll. 32 What do they stand for? 1 The government has been in power for a year. Would you say it has done a very good job a fairly good job a fairly bad job a very bad job no opinion 2 11% 38% 26% 5% 8% Do you think the government has been honest and trustworthy, or not? honest and trustworthy not honest and trustworthy no opinion 3 Do you think that public services have improved, got worse, or stayed the same since the government came to power? improved got worse stayed the same 4 49% 39% 12% 12% 16% 65% Do you feel confident that this government will improve standards of living during its time in office? yes no they will stay the same no opinion 30% 15% 50% 5% There are three tasks: 1 2 3 Produce headlines on the poll for different types of newspaper. In doing this, consider the type of newspaper and its usual political position. Make sure that you include some headlines which favour the government and others that are hostile. Write up the story to accompany one of your headlines, making sure that you apply a spin which clearly favours or criticises the government. No specific government has been named here, so you can apply your story to any current government and its leaders that you know about. The leader of the government and then the leader of the Opposition are asked the following question: what are your reactions to the latest opinion poll on the government’s performance? Write their answers to this question. 33 Making speeches Aims of this unit Making speeches is a vital part of the politician’s role in announcing policy and persuading people to agree with it. Analysing such speeches is a popular source of students’ own research in this field. This unit will look at some of the most common features of political speeches and give some indication of how their linguistic methods can be analysed. Rhetoric is defined by Cockcroft and Cockcroft in their book Persuading People (1992) as ‘the art of persuasive discourse’ using the word ‘discourse’, here to refer to both spoken and written communication. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote extensively on the ‘art’ of rhetoric, seeing it as an important part of human activity, and so worth categorising and defining in great detail. Plato, on the other hand, believed rhetoric to be about the manipulation of an audience by people who were essentially insincere in their motives. Neither saw rhetoric as concerned only with government, but as a factor in all human communication; the skills of rhetoric were taught in early school systems in Britain, long before subjects like English Language or Literature were invented. Although rhetoric, in the sense that the Cockcrofts use the word, relates to all forms of human communication, the word has tended to be used much more frequently to refer to speech and even more specifically to a certain type of 35 Making speeches formal public speaking. Rhetorical skills, in the sense of persuasive public speaking, have always had emphasis in the American education system, and they are present in the British system too. Debating societies are a common feature in many schools, colleges and universities, and debating competitions are popular. The English and Welsh National Curriculum refers to formal debating as an important part of students’ education in Speaking and Listening. One of the most common features of this formal debating is that it is the skills of speaking persuasively that are far more important than a personally held belief in the topic under debate. In competitions, for instance, debating teams are given a proposition and are told which side they must argue. They are judged on their rhetorical skills, and their ability to speak persuasively, rather than the honesty of their views. Students when debating formally are encouraged to see insincerity as perfectly acceptable, provided the rhetorical skills are good enough. The adversarial legal systems of many countries could also be said to reward rhetorical skill rather than honesty and truth; good lawyers are often seen as those who can persuade a jury to agree with their case, rather than adjudicate on what really happened. There are many forms of public speaking other than debating and the law, however: the college lecture; the religious sermon; the social club AGM are all examples of events where formal speeches are made. The assumption would be in all these cases that sincerely held views are expressed, but that rhetorical skills are going to be needed if the audience is to both pay attention and be persuaded. So in some instances we place the skills of rhetoric above the value of honesty (as Plato indicated); in others we hope that the skills of rhetoric will reinforce our good intentions (as Aristotle claimed). When we come to political speeches, though, the position is less clear. No doubt the politicians themselves would argue that they wish to put forward policies that they genuinely believe in. More cynical listeners, though, might argue that the real purpose, at least for those politicians whom they see as untrustworthy, is to manipulate the audience into agreeing with policies which really serve only the desire of the politician to gain or keep power. There is no simple answer to this dilemma, because concepts like honesty and sincerity cannot be measured against any absolute standard. This unit will focus on a few of the most common persuasive devices and the effects of modern media on the way politicians make speeches. Before doing so, though, it is helpful to refer to Aristotle’s classification of the means of persuasion into three broad categories; Cockcroft and Cockcroft describe these as: 36 Making speeches (a) (b) (c) persuasion through personality and stance persuasion through the arousal of emotion persuasion through reasoning. Although this unit will focus most on the last of these three, the linguistic reasoning cannot be persuasive without the other two categories as well. All three categories will be used by the speaker as part of the performance; how well they are constructed, and how each member of the audience responds to them, will decide whether the politician is seen as sincere or manipulative. The soundbite age Politicians nowadays tend to make most of their public speeches to invited audiences of their own supporters - at events such as party conferences and party rallies. This was not always the case. Up to the 1960s political speeches tended to be more numerous and offer more open access to anyone who wanted to attend. This meant that most speeches were interrupted by hecklers - and the politicians’ skill was often judged by how well these hecklers were put down. These days, although the audience in the hall is vital to the whole process - as will be seen shortly - the real audiences are the millions who will either read about the speeches in newspapers or hear/see them on radio and television. The speeches are often written for the speakers, with leading politicians having teams of speech writers to prepare their material for them. Speeches are distributed in advance to the press so that they can catch the next day’s newspapers and to broadcasters so that they can cover the speeches in evening news bulletins. However, the broadcasters will not, unless the circumstances are very special, transmit the whole speech, which means that the speeches must contain highlights which can be shown, in much the same way that the goals are shown from a football match, or the wickets falling in cricket. These highlights from speeches are sometimes called soundbites - they are carefully engineered excerpts, which the speakers hope in advance will receive attention. (The word ‘soundbite’ derives in part from the idea of a computer byte, which in turn comes from a bite or chunk taken out of something.) The audience in the hall, although not really the primary audience for the speech, have a vital role to play in the success of the soundbite. 37 Making speeches Politicians are often accused of speaking claptrap, and Max Atkinson (1984) traces the origin of the word ‘claptrap’. He quotes a definition of the word as meaning ‘a trick, device of language designed to catch applause’ and for the soundbites to work, the audience in the hall have to endorse what is being said by giving enthusiastic support. In other words they must happily fall for the claptrap. The importance of three Atkinson notes from his survey of speeches that one of the most common means of eliciting approval is the use of what he calls a ‘list of three’. Whatever the nature of the speech act, political speech or casual conversation, the three-part list is attractive to the speaker and listener because it is embedded in certain cultures as giving a sense of unity and completeness: ‘on your marks, get set, go!’ is the traditional way to start a race; omit either of the first two components and the runners are unlikely to respond. Activity Compile a list of well-known references which either include the number three, or form lists with three parts. Consider idiomatic phrases, literary references, religious references, popular jokes, song titles, nursery rhymes, children’s stories, etc. In political speeches, the lists of three can be simple repetition, as in the chant at marches against the policy of Margaret Thatcher when she was in power: Maggie, Maggie, Maggie Out, Out, Out or in Tony Blair’s soundbite when he stated at the time of the 1997 general election that his main concern was: Education, Education, Education or Republican Henry Hyde in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair, saying that he would act according to his sense of ‘duty, duty, duty’. 38 Making speeches Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address of 1863 used a slight modification of this simple repetition by using a different preposition in front of the words ‘the people’: Government of the people, By the people, For the people. Winston Churchill, praising the efforts of the Battle of Britain fighter pilots, said in 1940: Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few. The word ‘so’ is repeated three times, but there is also a contrast between ‘so much/so many’ and the last of the three ‘so few’. The effect of these lists does not rest solely in the repetition: they are spoken aloud, so prosodic features, such as pitch, tempo and rhythm, also play a major part in their effect. Remember too that non-verbal features will contribute to the effect, at least for those who can see the speaker on television or in the hall. The three-part list does not have to be mere repetition. It can have different words, but with a similar general meaning, as in the opening words of Nelson Mandela’s first speech on his release from prison in 1990. Speaking to a crowd of over 50,000 in Cape Town, and many millions more on global television, he used two three-part lists consecutively. Friends, comrades and fellow South Africans. I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all. Contrastive pairs Another common feature of political speeches is what Atkinson calls the contrastive pair, and what classical Greek and Roman writers on rhetoric called antithesis. Whereas the three-part list contains three parts which essentially complement each other, the contrastive pair contains two parts which are in some ways in opposition, but in other ways use repetition to make the overall effect. A good example of this is Neil Armstrong’s words when he became the first person to set foot on the moon in 1969. 39 Making speeches The context of these famous words is worth exploring. For days, millions living in the part of the world that was politically aligned to the USA had been watching television, waiting for the moment when the first astronaut would set foot on the moon. As Neil Armstrong was seen bouncing along the moon’s surface, they heard his first words: One small step for man: one giant leap for mankind. These words show a range of repetition and contrast across the two parts of the utterance. The repeated ‘one’ is attached to words with contrasting meaning within the same semantic fields - ‘small’/‘giant’ and ‘step’/ ‘leap’. The first words in each pair - ‘small’ and ‘step’ - are literal in that they describe what he was doing at the time, but the second words are metaphorical, ‘giant leap’ referring to technological progress. So ‘for man’ in one half becomes ‘for mankind’ in the second. Each part also has an identical syntactical structure, which although conveying a sense of an action has no main verb. There is also a phonological sense of repetition too, not just because some words are actually repeated but because the rhythm and stress are identical in each part. The use of contrast and repetition, then, can involve a number of linguistic features: it can include lexical repetition; semantic repetition and/or contrast including the literal contrasted with the metaphorical; syntactical repetition; and phonological repetition. When looking this closely at Armstrong’s words it also becomes clear that they were almost certainly scripted in advance; their patterns seem too neat for a spontaneous utterance. They are also, of course, very political, especially when they are put in the context of the so-called ‘space race’ going on at the time between the USA and the Soviet Union. Nelson Mandela, continuing the speech quoted earlier in this unit said: (a) ‘I stand before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people... We have waited too long for our freedom. We can no longer wait.’ (For commentary ,see below.) Margaret Thatcher, when elected to power for the first time in 1979, paraphrased, as part of her victory speech, the words of St Francis of Assisi. She said: (b) ‘Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. Where there is despair, may we bring hope.’ 40 Making speeches In the run-up to the 1997 election in Britain, rising crime rates became an issue between the two major parties. The Conservative Party, then in power, claimed that it was tougher in its policies on crime than Labour would be. Tony Blair, for the Labour Party, replied that they would be: (c) ‘Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.’ Activity Write a paragraph on each of the extracts from speeches quoted above (a, b, c), showing clearly how the speaker has used repetition and contrast. In addition to identifying the words or phrases which distinguish each part of the contrast, show how other language features also contribute to the overall effect. Commentary (a) ‘I stand before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people... We have waited too long for our freedom. We can no longer wait.’ There are two contrasts here. In the first, Mandela contrasts ‘not being a prophet’, with ‘being a humble servant’ – the negative coming before the positive as it usually does with pairs, so that the stress can be on the positive second part. He denies any special powers that would belong to a prophet, such as religious insight and foresight, and offers himself instead as a humble servant. Politicians often claim humility and service to the people as their motive for wanting power, but these are not particularly exciting qualities – it can be argued that in rejecting the role of prophet, Mandela has nonetheless planted the idea that he might be one, or that some see him as one. The grammatical cohesion of the contrast is achieved through the phrases ‘not as/but as’. In his second contrast quoted here, Mandela uses pronouns, verbs, adverbials of time and a negative to create the comparison, along with a subtle use of word order. The pronouns ‘we/our’ bind speaker to audience; agreement with his view is taken for granted. ‘We have waited’ (past tense, suggesting time right up to the present) ‘too long’ (adverbial) is contrasted with ‘We can no longer wait.’ As the message he wanted to give was one about peaceful but necessary change rather than instant and violent revolution, the word order becomes vital. The repeated verb ‘wait’ comes last – we have 41 Making speeches had to wait for it, because Mandela wants to put it at the most important place in the sentence – at the end (‘for freedom’ is not repeated but is understood). (b) ‘Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. Where there is despair, may we bring hope.’ The contrasting pairs of abstract nouns – discord/harmony; error/ truth; doubt/ faith; despair/hope – have a biblical ring to them, as you might expect from their source. St Francis, though, was talking about spiritual matters rather than politics and doubt/faith are perhaps hardest to apply in a political context, so the real emphasis lies with the last contrast, and especially the word ‘hope’ – which as an abstract noun suggests a bright future from a leader as she starts her term of office. The contrasting abstract nouns are united by the repeated structures ‘where there is’ and ‘may we bring’, each repetition adding a weight of expectation. ‘May we bring’ is an unusual verb construction. It sounds very much like a prayer to a higher authority, although in fact the higher authority is Thatcher herself who has just gained power. In apparently seeking the help of an implied god, she is at the same time asserting her own power. ( c) ‘Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.’ The contrast here is established by the addition of ‘the causes of’