Language and Power

• Political power - power held by people with authority, such as politicians and the police.

• Personal power - power based on an individual's occupation or role in society. For example, a headteacher would likely hold more power than a teaching assistant.

• Social group power - power held by a group of people due to certain social factors, such as class, ethnicity, gender, or age.

Wareing suggested that these three types of power can be divided into instrumental power and influential power. People, or organisations, can hold instrumental power, influential power, or both.

Let’s take a look at these types of power in more detail.

Instrumental power

Instrumental power is seen as authoritative power. Typically speaking, someone who has instrumental power has power simply because of who they are. These people do not have to convince anyone of their power or persuade anyone to listen to them; others must listen to them simply because of the authority they have.

People or organisations with instrumental power use language to maintain or enforce their authority.

Features of instrumental power language include:

• Formal register

• Imperative sentences - giving requests, demands, or advice

• Modal Verbs - e.g., 'you should'; 'you must'

• Mitigation - using language to reduce the seriousness of what is being said

• Conditional sentences - e.g., ‘if you don’t respond soon, further action will be taken.'

• Declarative statements - e.g., 'in today's class we will look at Declarative statements.'

• Latinate words - words derived from or imitating Latin

Influential power

Influential power refers to when a person (or group of people) does not have any authority but is trying to gain power and influence over others. Those who wish to gain influential power may use language to persuade others to believe in them or support them. This type of power is often found in politics, the media, and marketing.

Features of influential power language include:

• Assertions - presenting opinions as facts, e.g., ‘we all know that England is the greatest country in the world’

• Metaphors - the use of established metaphors can reassure the audience and evoke the power of memory, establishing a bond between the speaker and the listener.

• Loaded language - language that can evoke strong emotions and/or exploit feelings

• Embedded assumptions - e.g., assuming the listener is really interested in what the speaker has to say

In some spheres of society, such as in politics, both Aspects of power are present. Politicians have authority over us, as they impose the laws we must follow; however, they must also try to persuade us to continue voting for them and their policies.

• In the media

• The news

• Advertising

• Politics

• Speeches

• Education

• Law

• Religion

Language and power in politics

Politics and power (both instrumental and influential power) go hand in hand. Politicians use political rhetoric in their speeches to persuade others to give them power.

Here are some of the strategies used in political rhetoric:

• Repetition

• Rule of three - e.g., Tony Blaire’s ‘Education, Education, Education’ policy

• Use of 1st person plural pronouns - 'we', 'us'; e.g., the Queen’s use of the royal ‘we’

• Hyperbole - exaggeration

• Rhetorical questions

• Leading questions - e.g., 'you don’t want your country to be run by a clown, do you?'

• Changes in tone and intonation

• Use of lists

• Using imperative verbs - verbs used to create imperative sentences, e.g., ‘act now’ or ‘speak up’

• Use of humour

• Tautology - saying the same thing twice but using different words to do so, e.g., ‘it’s 7 am in the morning’

• Prevarication - not answering direct questions

Features of Language and Power

We’ve seen some examples of how language is used to represent power, but let’s take a look at some more language features in both spoken and written Discourse that are used to maintain and enforce power.

Lexical choice

Language and power theories and research

Understanding language and power theories are key to identifying when language is being used to maintain power.

When engaging in conversation, people who have power or wish to have it will utilise specific strategies when talking to help them establish their dominance. Some of these strategies include interrupting others, being polite or impolite, committing face-saving and face-threatening acts, and flouting Grice’s Maxims.

Not sure what some of those terms mean? Don’t worry! This brings us to the key theorists in language and power and their arguments, including:

• Fairclough's Language and Power (1984)

• Goffman's Face Work Theory (1967) and Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory (1987)

• Coulthard and Sinclair's Initiation-Response-Feedback Model (1975)

• Grice's Conversational Maxims (1975)

Fairclough

In Language and Power (1984), Fairclough explains how language serves as a tool to maintain and create power in society.

Fairclough suggested that many encounters (this is a broad term, encompassing not only conversations but also reading advertisements, for example) are unequal and that the language we use (or are constrained to use) reflects the power structures in society. Fairclough argues that, in a capitalist society, power relations are typically divided into the dominant and dominated classes, i.e., business or landowners and their workers. Fairclough based a lot of his work on Michel Foucault's work on discourse and power.

Fairclough states that we should analyse language to recognise when it is being used by the powerful to persuade or influence us. Fairclough named this analytical practice 'critical Discourse Analysis'.

A key part of critical Discourse Analysis can be split into two disciplines:

• Power in discourse - the lexicon, strategies, and language structures used to create power

• Power behind discourse - The sociological and ideological reasons behind who is asserting power over others and why.

Fairclough also discussed the power behind advertising and coined the term ‘synthetic personalisation’ (remember we discussed this earlier!). Synthetic personalisation is a technique that large corporations use to create a sense of friendship between themselves and their potential customers by addressing them on a personal level.

Goffman, Brown, and Levinson

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson created their Politeness Theory (1987) based on Erving Goffman’s Face Work theory (1967). Face Work refers to the act of preserving one’s ‘face’ and appealing to or preserving another's ‘face’.³

Brown and Levinson stated that the levels of politeness we use with others are often dependent on power relations - the more powerful they are, the more polite we are.

Two important terms to understand here are ‘face-saving acts’ (preventing others from feeling publicly embarrassed) and ‘face-threatening acts’ (behaviour that may embarrass others). Those in less powerful positions are more likely to perform face-saving acts for those with more power.

Sinclair and Coulthard

In 1975, Sinclair and Coulthard introduced the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model.⁴ The model can be used to describe and highlight power relations between the teacher and the student in a classroom. Sinclair and Coulthard state that the teacher (the one with the power) initiates the discourse by asking a question, the student (the one without the power) gives a response, and the teacher then provides some sort of feedback.

Grice

Grice’s conversational maxims, also known as 'The Gricean Maxims', are based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle, which aims to explain how people achieve effective communication in everyday situations.

In Logic and Conversation (1975), Grice introduced his four conversational maxims. They are:

• Maxim of Quality

• Maxim of Quantity

• Maxim of Relevance

• Maxim of Manner

These maxims are based on Grice’s observation that anyone who wished to engage in meaningful conversation usually attempts to be truthful, informative, relevant, and clear.

However, these conversational maxims are not always followed by everyone and are often violated or flouted:

• When maxims are violated, they are broken secretly, and it’s usually considered quite serious (such as lying to someone).

• When maxims are flouted, this is considered less severe than violating a maxim and is done far more often. Being ironic, using metaphors, pretending to mishear someone, and using vocabulary you know your listener won’t understand are all examples of flouting Grice’s Maxims.

Grice suggested that those with more power, or those wishing to create the illusion of having more power, are more likely to flout Grice’s maxims during conversations.