A Linguistic Analysis of Euphemistic Expressions in President George Bush’s Speeches: A Critical Discourse
A Linguistic Analysis of Euphemistic Expressions in President George Bush’s Speeches: A Critical Discourse
تحليل لغويّ للتّعبيرات الملطفة في خطابات الرّئيس جورج بوش: تحليل خطاب نقديّ
Samar El Hachem[1]
سمر الهاشم
Advisor: Prof. Talal Wehbe[2] Co-advisor: Dr. Rabih Nabhan[3]
تاريخ الاستلام 5/9/ 2025 تاريخ القبول 21/9/2025
Abstract
This study explores how language influences ideologies and shapes people’s understanding of world events, specifically analyzing George Bush’s use of political euphemisms in eight speeches regarding the Iraq War. It delves into the underlying meanings of these euphemisms and illustrates how political speeches have evolved into strategic instruments for establishing credibility and spreading ideological messages. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative analysis, this study investigates the use of euphemisms in the speeches under scrutiny. The data indicates a correlation between Bush’s language and his ideological strategies that are characteristic of the general trends in politics. Bush used euphemisms in most cases to twist reality, particularly making use of the “victim euphemisms” to distort reality. In the end, his language proved effective as a means for information control, obfuscation, and justification of disputable actions, showing how political language is designed for the people’s perception in a way that makes policies fit in a complex geopolitical setting.
Keywords: euphemism, linguistic devices, political discourse, critical discourse analysis; ideology; doublespeak
الملخص:
تستكشف هذه الدّراسة كيفية تأثير اللغة في الأيدولوجيّات وتشكيل فهم النّاس للأحداث العالميّة، من خلال تحليل استخدام جورج بوش للمحسّنات اللّفظيّة في ثمانية خطابات تتعلّق بحرب العراق. تتعمّق الدّراسة في الدّلالات الكامنة وراء هذه المحسّنات وتوضح كيف تحوّلت الخطابات السّياسيّة إلى أدوات استراتيجية لبناء المصداقيّة ونشر الرّسائل الأيدولوجيّة. ومن خلال اعتماد منهجيّة مختلطة تجمع بين التّحليل النّوعيّ والكميّ، تحقّق الدّراسة في أنماط استخدام المحسّنات اللفظية داخل الخطابات قيد الدّراسةوتشير البيانات إلى وجود علاقة وثيقة بين اللّغة التي استخدمها بوش والاستراتيجيات الأيدولوجيّة الممثلة للتوجهات السياسية السائدة. غالبًا ما لجأ بوش إلى هذه المحسّنات للتّلاعب بالواقع، لا سيما من خلال محسّنات الضّحيّة لتشويه الحقيقة. في الختام، يثبت تحليلنا أنّ لغة بوش كانت فعّالة كوسيلة للسّيطرة على المعلومات، التعمية، وتبرير الإجراءات المثيرة للجدل، ما يبيّن مدى تصميم اللّغة السّياسيّة لتلائم إدراك الجمهور في سياق جيوسياسي معقد.
الكلمات المفتاحية : المحسّنات اللفظية، الأدوات اللغوية، الخطاب السّياسيّ، تحليل الخطاب النقدي، الأيدولوجيّا، الكلام المزدوج.
Introduction and Rationale
The use of language as a strategic tool is widespread. For instance, euphemisms can substitute words directed at disgracing someone’s culture (Samoskait, 2011). Orwell (1946) notes an unsettling tendency among politicians to use politically charged and diluted vocabulary, depersonalizing the harsh realities of their actions. Speakers who opt to speak directly on unpleasant or sensitive issues are usually courting trouble, since not only are they likely to offend their audience, but they could also ruin professional relationships. Such communication problems are resolved with euphemisms, which may prevent the escalation of conflicts (Mwanambuyu, 2011). There is, however, a lack of comprehension of the distinguishing traits and application of euphemisms, and this has led to the ongoing exploration of former Bush’s wartime public addresses. This research examines euphemisms in political speeches, specifically those of Bush, and shows how pragmatics can help understand subcultural and politically correct language. The study employs a mixed-methods approach integrating qualitative and quantitative analysis to explore the strategic use of euphemisms in eight speeches regarding the Iraq War.
Justification of the Study
Studies of euphemisms in political discourse remain significant. Bostdorff (2011) expresses the importance of studying euphemisms as he discusses George W. Bush’s use of epideictic language. Zarifovna (2021) notes that analyzing euphemisms in a language such as Uzbek or English contributes to linguistics, cognitive linguistics, and sociolinguistics. While investigating euphemisms in different languages or eras, scholars may find out how the development of a society, its traditions, and ways of
communication have influenced communication patterns. Radulovic’s (2017) work shows that euphemisms were not only used in the USSR but also in the English Renaissance and Modernist eras, demonstrating their relevance today. Additionally, the aftermath of the Iraq War still influences geopolitics, international relations, and military warfare. Studying euphemisms in this period allows people to draw conclusions about today’s conflicts, diplomatic relations, and the general public reaction against conflict and international politics.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an approach to studying real-life written texts intended for some type of social purpose (Wodak, 2009). Van Dijk (1993) first coined CDA, which addresses how people use texts to reproduce unequal relations of economic, cultural, and political power within a society. This perspective attempts to overturn social order in ways that are more equitable to all members of society (Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard, 2003). CDA can shed light on President Bush’s political speeches and actions, as the language he uses shapes his ideas, establishes his action plans, and determines their outcomes.
The purpose of this article is to examine political speeches and the need for background on Political Discourse Analysis (PDA). Understanding how to interpret discursive texts on politics is crucial, and this understanding should guide the approach to PDA.
According to Van Dijk (1993), critical-political discourse examines the contexts and impacts of social-political injustices resulting from power imbalances. Political discourse can contribute to the rise of racism, particularly when it serves to legitimize injustices or reinforce ethnic or racial inequalities.
Historical Background of Euphemism
Euphemisms have been around for a while, with examples in The Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare’s sonnets (Fionan, 2009; Samoskait, 2011). Many cultures have adopted them to conceal their intentions or perhaps for reasons of respect. The English term “euphemism” itself first appears in Thomas Blount’s 1656 Glossographia (Blount, 1656), and euphemistic substitutions were common among both commoners (for crimes, money, and poverty) and the upper class (for intimate matters and death) in Early Modern England (Samoskait, 2011). Rawson’s Dictionary of Euphemisms (1981) and Neaman & Silver’s Thesaurus of Euphemisms (1983) further systematized these terms (Wang, 2013). Lexical or non-lexical, euphemisms fulfill the politeness demands of the particular communicative context.
Doublespeak
Doublespeak, a language that is rich in euphemism, deceives people instead of softening undesirable features or using pleasant language (Bakhtiar, 2012). Orwell (1946) and Lutz (1993) maintain that politics is prone to doublespeak because it entails an overuse of language while having little impact on the clear comprehension of issues. Rababah (2014) differentiates between euphemism, dysphemism, and double-speak. The purpose of euphemisms is to mitigate and avoid intended harm, whereas dysphemisms are employed negatively, intended or unintended. As for doublespeak, it aligns with dysphemism since it obscures the truth.
Euphemism Strategies from a Pragmatic Point of View
Yule (1996) defines pragmatics as the study of speakers’ words, context, and implicit meanings. Context plays a crucial role in euphemisms (Xiao-Yan, 2014), which are used in biology, politics, and military phenomena (Pan, 2013). Burridge (2012) delves into the communicative functions of euphemisms, introducing the term ‘x-phemisms’ as a catch-all for euphemism, dysphemism, and orthophemism. Both euphemisms and orthophemisms avoid offense, with euphemisms making indirect references; dysphemisms, however, are the literal and direct alternative (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
Classification of Euphemism
Euphemisms can be classified into positive, negative, and metaphorical categories based on their functions (Mwanambuyu, 2011).
Positive euphemisms enhance language; for example, using terms like “counsel,” “healthcare professional,” and “CEO” illustrates this concept (Rawson, cited in Mwanambuyu, 2011).
Negative euphemisms replace taboo words in religious, cultural, or private contexts (Mwanambuyu, 2011). Examples include using “absorption” for “assimilation,” “peace” to justify violence, or “collaborator” for “traitor” (Holder, 2008; Radulovic, 2012).
Metaphorical Euphemisms
Politicians use metaphorical language to convey abstract concepts, raise morale, and gain support (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Some metaphors for “death” include “going to” one’s “last home” and “resting in peace” (Mwanambuyu, 2011). The Bush administration, through metaphorical framing, conflated Iraq with the September 11 attacks; this illustrates their power in shaping public opinion (Kellner, 2003).
Burridge (2012) identified six functions of euphemisms:
- The protective euphemism – to shield and avoid offense
People typically use these euphemisms when discussing sensitive subjects like death or religion. For example, one could say “passed away” instead of “died.” Western taboos differ according to criteria like age, intimate matters, education, and social status.
- The underhand euphemism – to mystify and misrepresent
The military, political, and medical domains employ underhand euphemisms to conceal or downplay reality or the effects of human suffering. For example, there was a coded language of Dutch fishermen to hide how certain strategies were carried out, with “collateral damage” meaning killing civilians or “Lipton tea” meaning various illegal things.
- The uplifting euphemism – to talk up and to inflate
Uplifting euphemisms involve a significant distortion of language, often in pretentious terms. This can be seen in legal or planning documents which strive to be more legitimate. For example, legal documents use “meta-planning schemes” instead of “parking lots.”
- The provocative euphemism – to reveal and to inspire
To add perspective, provocative euphemisms address taboo issues to reveal social problems or groups, much like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, which employs euphemisms to challenge political ideologies.
- The cohesive euphemism – to show solidarity and to help define the gang
Cohesive euphemisms enhance the sense of integration within communities by utilizing shared language that may be unfamiliar to external parties. These are slang or jargon of some professions or social group.
- The ludic euphemism – to have fun and to entertain
People use ludic euphemisms for fun, often incorporating more colloquial terms into their speech. An example is “hard-to-meet needs” for “serial killers.”
Features of Political Euphemism
Political euphemism serves specific purposes such as concealing scandals, spreading misinformation among populations, and manipulating reality (Zhao and Dong, 2010).
One of the founders of structural linguistics, Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, emphasized that a language sign consists of a signifier and signified. We can view euphemisms as surrogate signifiers, conveying the same idea (Zhao & Dong, 2010). Eliecer (2005) claims that euphemisms not only serve to deal with taboo themes but can also help mitigate speech acts. Therefore, such processes facilitate the maintenance of moral relations between speakers and listeners, allowing interactions to occur without any resentment or disputes.
Vague Meanings
Orwell (1968) highlighted the vagueness of political language, which can be demystified through euphemisms. Such euphemistic expressions often utilize the generalities of words instead of their specifics or substitute superordinate terms for their respective hyponyms, all while avoiding the use of offensive words. For instance, people referred to the “atomic bombs” during the Hiroshima attack as “the gadget,” “the device,” or simply “the things.”
Euphemisms are an essential part of political speeches, but limited studies specifically examine how American presidents employ them. Samoskait (2011) discovered that the use of metaphorical euphemisms and compound structures is prevalent. Yaseen and Wahid (2012) highlighted President Obama’s use of euphemisms in his references to combat missions. In the same vein, Xu (2010) found war, human, and journey metaphors in the six inaugural addresses of American presidents, which were able to spice up political discourses.
According to the available literature, using euphemisms in language is a face-saving strategy rather than a choice. A study done by McGlone and Batchelor (2003) also suggests that these expressions are socially constructed towards maintaining face. This goes against Orwell (1946) who believes that figurative language must be minimized. As pointed out by scholars, such as Lakoff, Leech, Brown, and Levinson (as cited in Eliecer, 2005), conflicts can be avoided by the use of euphemisms especially in speech situations whereby command or direct request is made. In light of the aforementioned, this literature review emphasizes the use of euphemisms in political speeches as a strategy for influencing the audience and gaining control over them. This study employs Burridge’s (2012) model to categorize the six core functions of euphemisms.
Methodology
Textual analysis is a qualitative approach, for it is concerned with particular properties of texts and is usually accompanied by quantitative analysis, a branch of corpus linguistics (Fairclough, 2006). Kakulu (2014) centers qualitative research on the inductive mode of reasoning, aiming to expand knowledge on specific events or phenomena experienced by individuals or groups. Rucker (2016) indicates that thematic content analysis is one of the most used qualitative techniques for analysis, where a researcher iteratively reads and labels a text, interprets information, searches for themes, and constructs a holistic story. Using a descriptive approach, this article detailed Bush’s eight speeches on the US–Iraq war, paying particular attention to the euphemisms he used. We coded the speeches using R. W. Holder’s Dictionary of Euphemisms and Rawson’s Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk, then ran frequency counts in AntConc (version 3.5.7), and presented results in Tables 1–8 (see Appendix A). Through comparison and correlation of the frequencies and functions of the euphemisms, the study sought to explain the impact of the use of euphemisms on the perceptions of people in particular situations, helping understand the guidelines for crafting appropriate speeches, enhance the awareness of the audience, and explain what makes some political speeches compelling.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of Bush’s speeches reveals a consistent use of euphemistic expressions to protect public image, avoid negative emotional responses, and conceal true intentions, highlighting the strong relationship between language and power.
March 17, 2003
In the March 17 address, President Bush presented his ultimatum as an attempt to bring peacemaking and legitimacy to military action while claiming all other avenues had been pursued. To mitigate the full description of war, he depicted U.S. forces as reluctant enforcers instead of aggressors (Bush, 2003a).
“Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will lead to military conflict…” (Bush, 2003a)
March 19, 2003
Bush framed the decision to use force as the very last option taken only after countless disarmament attempts through peaceful measures. He referred to earlier operations collectively as peaceful efforts, claimed authority to act despite UN objections, and held out the promise of a coming liberation to obscure the reality of invasion (Bush, 2003b).
May 1, 2003
Opening with the declaration that “major combat operations have ended,” Bush argued that defeating America’s enemies was essential for peace and freedom, a simplification that masked underlying strategic motives. He recast the invasion as a liberation, then shifted focus to rebuilding—highlighting hospital and school construction as correcting Saddam Hussein’s neglect (Bush, 2003c).
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” (Bush, 2003c)
December 14, 2003
Announcing Saddam Hussein’s capture, Bush asserted that coalition forces were restoring Iraqi sovereignty, dignity, and opportunity for a better life—using language of hope and freedom to downplay the occupation. He repeatedly invoked liberty to soften the occupation’s harsh realities and called on Americans to stand united in an ongoing struggle (Bush, 2003d).
June 28, 2005
Without mentioning UN approval, Bush described U.S. actions as taking the fight to terrorists and assisting Iraqis in building a free nation. He spoke of training Iraqi security forces, improving infrastructure, and hunting down terrorists—all under the banner of liberation and progress rather than invasion (Bush, 2005).
March 19, 2006
On the third anniversary, Bush praised Iraq’s reconstruction progress and argued that victory would secure America’s safety and lay groundwork for future peace, employing liberation language to obscure the continued military presence (Bush, 2006a).
June 13, 2006
Bush characterized U.S. goals in Iraq as a broader mission rather than war, invoking a grateful nation to rally support and framing troops as partners in advancing freedom and peace (Bush, 2006b).
March 19, 2008
Marking the war’s fifth anniversary, Bush again described the campaign as a liberation initiative and foundation‐building effort for peace—despite ongoing occupation—and reaffirmed his protective mission in the post-9/11 era (Bush, 2008).
Quantitative Presentation of Data
Protective Euphemism
| casualties | loved ones | Loss | sacrifice(s) | |
| S1 March 17, 2003 | 1 | |||
| S2 March 19, 2003 | 1 | 1 | ||
| S3 May 1, 2003 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| S4 Dec14 2003 | 1 | |||
| S5 June 28, 2005 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| S6 March 19, 2006 | ||||
| S7 June 13, 2006 | 5 | |||
| S8 March 19, 2008 | 1 | 1 |
Table 1 Victims to Shield & to Avoid Offense
Figure 1 Victims to Shield and to Avoid Offense
Figure 1 and Graph 1 illustrate Bush’s reliance on euphemistic expressions to mitigate the impact of sensitive subjects and avoid causing offense. In his third speech, delivered on May 1, 2003, he employed terms such as “casualties,” “loved ones,” “loss,” and “sacrifices.” Similarly, in his fifth speech on June 28, 2005, he used euphemisms like “sacrifices,” “loss,” and “loved ones.” Notably, in his seventh speech on March 19, 2008, Bush reiterated the term “sacrifices” five times.
Victims to Reveal and Inspire
| S1 March 17, 2003 | S2 March 19, 2003 | S3 May 1, 2003 | S4 Dec14 2003 | S5 June 28, 2005 | S6 March 19, 2006 | S7 June 13, 2006 | S8 March 19, 2008 | ||
| people | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 13 | 1 | 24 | 11 | |
| civilians | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| citizens | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| innocent | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | ||
| free Iraq | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | |||
| free nation | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| troubled
world |
1 | ||||||||
| our country | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| nation | 3 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |
| free societies | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| civilized world | 2 | ||||||||
| not making the journey
home |
1 | ||||||||
| depart/ed | 1 | ||||||||
| no homecoming | 1 | ||||||||
| remains | 1 | ||||||||
Table 2 Victims to Reveal and Inspire
Figure 2 Victim to Reveal and Inspire
Table 2 and Figure 2 present the frequency of victim-focused euphemisms across Bush’s eight Iraq-War speeches. Bush employed euphemistic expressions to depict the primary victims as “people” and “civilians” forced to live in a troubled world, unable to return home due to the actions of a villainous dictator. The term “people” was used 75 times, “nation” 35 times, and “citizens” 14 times. By framing the Iraqis as victims, Bush strongly urged the attack on Iraq, attempting to justify the war. The use of the term “citizens,” which is synonymous with “people,” achieves a similar effect but with a focus on legal rights, emphasizing the people’s right to live in a free country. Additionally, the term “innocent” was frequently employed to portray the victims in Iraq, emphasizing them as part of a “free Iraq.” Euphemistically, Bush implies that those who have chosen to resist their regime are already somewhat free, even though this may not be the case.
Military Solidarity to Define the Gang
| men and women | men and women in uniform | servicemen &women | deployment/ deployed/ re-deploy | timetable | personnel | Intelligence | |
| S1 March 17, 2003 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| S2 March 19, 2003 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| S3 May 1, 2003 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||
| S4 Dec14 2003 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| S5 June 28, 2005 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| S6 March 19, 2006 | 2 | ||||||
| S7 June 13, 2006 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| S8 March 19, 2008 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
Table 3 Military Solidarity to Define the Gang
Figure 3 Military Solidarity to Define the Gang
Table 3 and Figure 3 reveal Bush’s use of military terminology: the phrase “men and women” appears 22 times, “men and women in uniform” 3 times, “servicemen and women” 3 times, “deployed” 5 times, and “intelligence” 10 times. These expressions are strategically employed to enhance face-saving measures and create a camouflage-like effect, making these terms more readily accepted by the audience on a cognitive level.
Mystify and Misrepresent
| S1 March 17, 2003 | S2 March 19, 2003 | S3 May 1, 2003 | S4 Dec14 2003 | S5 June 28, 2005 | S6 March 19, 2006 | S7 June 13, 2006 | S8 March 19, 2008 | ||
| protect/ ing | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| defend/ing | 1 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 1 | ||||
| free/ freedom | 6 | 4 | 17 | 4 | 33 | 12 | 11 | ||
| liberate/ liberated | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| liberation | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| liberty | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | |||
| Peace | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||
| Safety | 2 | 1 | |||||||
| Victory | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| help/ing | 1 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 6 | 6 | |||
| rebuild/ ing | 1 | 3 | |||||||
| build/ ing | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | |||||
| restore control | 1 | ||||||||
| Security | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 | |||||
| secure/ securing | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Stable | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Respect | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||||
| Reconstructing | 1 | ||||||||
| bringing order | 1 | ||||||||
| better life- the world is better – United States of America is safer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| democracy | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| democratic | 5 | ||||||||
| Stable | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| stability | 1 | ||||||||
| encourage | 1 | ||||||||
| govern itself | 1 | ||||||||
| sustain itself | 1 | ||||||||
| peaceful/ peacefully | 6 | 1 | |||||||
| new Iraq | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| patient and honorable efforts | 1 | ||||||||
| Prosperous | 1 | ||||||||
| avoid war/ without war | 2 | ||||||||
| diplomacy | 2 | 1 | |||||||
| United | 1 | ||||||||
| law enforcement | 1 | ||||||||
| message of hope | 1 | ||||||||
| justice | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| sovereignty | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Dignity | 1 | 3 | |||||||
| Rights | 2 | 2 | |||||||
| Prosperity | 1 | ||||||||
| Hope | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Tolerance | 1 | ||||||||
| Rescued | 1 | ||||||||
Table 4 Mystify and Misrepresent
Figure 4 Mystify and Misrepresent
Table 4 and Figure 4 illustrate the euphemistic expressions Bush employed to mystify and misrepresent the true nature of the attacks, portraying them as ultimately aimed at achieving “freedom” and “liberty,” which the United States is depicted as guaranteeing. To justify the war, Bush repeatedly used terms such as “protecting,” “defending,” “freedom,” “liberty,” “peace,” and “safety.” Notably, the term “peace” was used 19 times, “freedom” occured 87 times, and “liberty” appeared 19 times across his eight selected speeches. The use of these euphemistic terms serves to evoke an idealized image of peace, potentially triggering positive emotions among the public and aiding Bush’s administration in justifying the war. Similarly, by emphasizing “protecting” and “defending,” Bush conveys a strong sense of determination and readiness to safeguard victims.
To Talk up & Inflate
| S1 March 17, 2003 | S2 March 19, 2003 | S3 May 1, 2003 | S4 Dec14 2003 | S5 June 28, 2005 | S6 March 19, 2006 | S7 June 13, 2006 | S8 March 19, 2008 | |
| Security Council | 7 | |||||||
| sovereign authority | 1 | |||||||
| Commander | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||
| The Department of Homeland Security | 1 | |||||||
| share the honor | 1 | |||||||
| Admiral | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| swiftest advance | 1 | |||||||
| celebrating Iraqis | 1 | |||||||
| Corporal | 1 | |||||||
| unprecedented measures | 1 | |||||||
| highest calling of history | 1 | |||||||
| Coalition | 3 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 5 | |
| welcomed our troops | 1 | |||||||
| celebrating Iraqis | 1 | |||||||
| General | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| President | 1 | |||||||
| Defense Department | 1 | |||||||
| Ambassador | 3 | 3 | ||||||
| Chiefs | 1 | |||||||
| Sergeant | 3 | |||||||
| Captain | 1 | |||||||
| medal of honor | 1 | |||||||
| Deputy Secretary | 1 | |||||||
| The Department of Defense | 1 | |||||||
| Ministries of Interior and Defense | 1 | |||||||
Table 5 Talk up & Inflate
Figure 5 Talk up and Inflate
Table 5 and Figure 5 illustrate Bush’s use of euphemistic expressions to enhance and elevate specific ideas. Terms like “Security Council,” “commander,” and “coalition” are strategically employed to evoke public approval and reframe controversial concepts in a more positive light. By referring to military actions as part of a “coalition,” Bush aimed to create a sense of grandeur and acceptability. This tactic aligns with professional jargon that dignifies roles, like calling a “secretary” an “administrative assistant.” Such language not only aims to confer prestige on the speaker but also to obscure meaning and potentially intimidate the audience.
To Reveal and Inspire
| enemy/ enemies | regime/s | Saddam/ Hussein | Bin Laden | Fedayeen | Baathist | Taliban | Al Qaeda/ Al Qaida | dictator/s- dictatorship | |
| S1 March 17, 2003 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| S2 March 19, 2003 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| S3 May 1, 2003 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 2 | ||||
| S4 Dec14 2003 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||||
| S5 June 28, 2005 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| S6 March 19, 2006 | |||||||||
| S7 June 13, 2006 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| S8 March 19, 2008 | 16 | 8 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
Table 6 Villain to Reveal and Inspire
Figure 6 Villain to Reveal and Inspire
Figure 6 and table 6 reveal how Bush employs euphemistic expressions to portray America’s enemies, focusing on the Iraqi regime under President Saddam Hussein. He depersonalizes the enemy, increasing his urgency to strike. This intimidates the American public, reinforcing the connection between emotional stress and action. The intimidated public may accept Bush’s policies due to their inability to reason clearly.
War is Business to Reveal and Inspire
| effort/s | cost/s/ costly | job | work/ing/s | noble cause | mission | duty | service | accomplishment (s) | |
| S1 March 17, 2003 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| S2 March 19, 2003 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||
| S3 May 1, 2003 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| S4 Dec14 2003 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||
| S5 June 28, 2005 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 3 | |||
| S6 March 19, 2006 | 1 | ||||||||
| S7 June 13, 2006 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||
| S8 March 19, 2008 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
Table 7 War is Business
Figure 7 War is Business
Table 7 and Figure 7 portray Bush’s view of the war as a challenging task, emphasizing the need for personal involvement and energy, potentially presenting certain administrations as diligent and reliable.
War to Mystify and Misrepresent
Table 8 War to Mystify and Misrepresent
Figure 8 War to Mystify and Misrepresent
Figure 8 and table 8 reveal how Bush uses euphemistic expressions to misrepresent war, using terms like “action,” “operation,” “confrontation,” “defense,” and “self-defense.” He argues that the United States, as a leader promoting peace and harmony, should wage war against those threatening America’s security, as it is responsible for granting these values to other nations.
Total Euphemistic Numbers
| Type of Euphemism | Frequency |
| victims to shield | 20 |
| victims to reveal and inspire | 146 |
| solidarity to define the gang | 46 |
| mystify and misrepresent | 330 |
| talk up and inflate | 84 |
| villain to reveal | 135 |
| war is business | 99 |
Table 9 Total Euphemistic Numbers
Figure 9 Total Euphemistic Numbers
Table 9 and Figure 9 demonstrate that Bush primarily used euphemistic expressions to mystify and misrepresent reality, framing military invasions as acts of freedom and war as danger removal. The second most frequently employed type of euphemism centers on portraying victims in a way that reveals and inspires, using provocative language. The third category involves casting President Saddam Hussein as a villain, using terms like “murderer,” “dictator,” “killer,” and “abuser.” Fourth, euphemisms depict war as a business endeavor. Fifth, expressions that talk up and inflate achievements are common. Sixth, euphemisms of solidarity—terms like “men and women in uniform” and “coalition”—help define the in-group. Lastly, euphemisms referencing victims serve to shield the audience from offense.
Conclusion
This study focused on euphemisms in George Bush’s warfare speeches from 2003 to 2008, to understand their effectiveness in achieving control and power. Euphemism was found to be a method in which harsh or contentious words would be substituted by softer and more gentle words, so that a message can be put across with minimal explosive reactions. The findings indicate that Bush’s use of language aligns with foreign policy and holds significant implications for linguistic, social, and political sciences.
Euphemistic expressions were shown to avoid disagreeable terms, elevate status, soften reality, distort facts, deceive, and support propaganda efforts. The study demonstrated that political discourse often constructs favorable messages through indirect language, hence emphasizing the need for public awareness of potential political motives. With access to the resources of knowledge and belief, and the media, Bush created the perception he wished the public to embrace. Effective persuasion requires speakers to align their ethics and reasoning with their audience’s beliefs, reinforcing the power holder’s agenda.
Overall, the results support previous research, emphasizing the power of language in shaping interpretation and the strategic use of euphemisms to maintain face and mislead the audience intentionally.
References
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtiar, M. (2012). Communicative functions of euphemisms in Persian. The Journal of International Social Research, 5(20), 7–12. Retrieved from http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt5/cilt5sayi20_pdf/1_dil_edebiyat/BAKHTIAR_Mohsen.pdf
Blount, T. (1656). Glossographia, or a dictionary interpreting hard words.
Bostdorff, D. M. (2011). Epideictic rhetoric in the service of war: George W. Bush on Iraq and the 60th anniversary of the victory over Japan. Communication Monographs, 78(3), 296–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.589458
Burridge, K. (2012). Weeds in the garden of words: Further observations on the tangled history of English euphemism. Macmillan.
Caldas-Coulthard, C., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.). (2003). Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. Routledge.
Eliecer, C. F. (2005). Euphemistic strategies in politeness and face concerns. Pragmatics, 15(2), 169–196. Retrieved from http://revistas.uca.es/index.php/pragma/article/download/116/127
Fairclough, N. (2006). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fionan, M. (2009). On features of English euphemism. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 44, 1–7.
Holder, R. W. (2008). Dictionary of euphemisms and other doubletalk. Crown.
Kakulu, I. I. (2014). Qualitative research strategies and data analysis methods in real estate research: An innovative approach using the BB model. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 22(1), 89–110.
Kellner, D. (2003). Preemptive strikes and the war on Iraq: A critique of Bush administration unilateralism and militarism. New Political Science, 417–440.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, W. (1993). Doubts and doublespeak. In G. Goshgarian (Ed.), Exploring language (8th ed., pp. 194–205). Addison-Wesley.
McGlone, M. S., & Batchelor, J. A. (2003). Looking out for number one: Euphemism and face. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 251–264.
Mwanambuyu, C. L. (2011). A socio-pragmatic analysis of Silozi euphemisms (Master’s thesis). University of Zambia.
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. In G. Goshgarian (Ed.), Exploring language (8th ed., pp. 194–205). Addison-Wesley.
Orwell, G. (1968). Politics and the English language. College Composition and Communication, 19(3), 127–140.
Pan, Q. (2013). A tentative study on the functions and applications of English euphemism. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2107–2111.
Rababah, H. A. (2014). The translatability and use of x-phemism expressions (x-phemization) in the medical discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(9), 1–12.
Radulović, M. (2012). Expressing values in positive and negative euphemisms. Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 19–28.
Radulović, M. (2017). Euphemisms through time: The rhetorical power of palliation. Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature, 15(3), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.22190/full1602173r
Rawson, H. (1981). A dictionary of euphemisms and other doubletalk: Being a compilation of linguistic leaves and verbal flourishes for artful users of the English language. Crown.
Rucker, M. (2016). 3 straightforward methods for analyzing qualitative interview data. Retrieved from https://www.qualres.org/HomeKaus-3609.html
Samoskait, L. (2011). 21st century political euphemisms in English newspapers: Semantic and structural study (Master’s thesis). Vytautas Magnus University.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
Wang, M. (2013). Corpus analysis of English euphemism in college English. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 156–161. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n8p156
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Xiao-Yan, W. (2014). An analysis of the euphemisms in a press conference in the light of politeness principle. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.219-222
Xu, J. (2010). A study on conceptual metaphors in presidential inaugural speeches. Studies in Language and Culture, 3(1), 1–12.
Yaseen, H., & Wahid, A. (2012). Exploring the use of euphemisms in some speeches of President Obama: A pragmatic study. International Journal of English and Literature, 3(4), 93–99.
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Zarifovna, R. N. (2021). The viewpoint to the study of euphemisms in different languages and epochs. Academicia: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(2), 1600–1605. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7137.2021.00558.9
Zhao, X., & Dong, J. (2010). Study on the features of English political euphemism and its social functions. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 123–128.
George W. Bush Speeches
Bush, G. W. (2003a, March 17). President says Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq within 48 hours [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Bush, G. W. (2003b, March 19). Address to the nation on Iraq [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Bush, G. W. (2003c, May 1). President Bush announces major combat operations in Iraq have ended [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
Bush, G. W. (2003d, December 14). President Bush discusses capture of Saddam Hussein [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031214-3.html
Bush, G. W. (2005, June 28). President addresses nation, discusses Iraq, war on terror [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html
Bush, G. W. (2006a, March 19). President Bush marks third anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060319-6.html
Bush, G. W. (2006b, June 13). President Bush makes surprise visit to Iraq, meets with Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060613.html
Bush, G. W. (2008, March 19). President Bush discusses global war on terror [Speech transcript]. The White House. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080319-2.html
[1] Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, USEK Email: alhashem.samar@gmail.com
[2] Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, USEK Email: talal_wehbe@baylor.edu
[3]Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, USEK Email: rabihnabhan@usek.edu.lb
