According to Bogusław Skowronk, both the natural language, its strategy and conventional communication patterns that are constituting our culture in the media environment are constantly changing their shape. The alleged "age of screens" has somewhat modified communications, including political ones, but it does not seem to have marginalized the meaning of the word in the general phenomenon of tabloidization of information messages, media, minds[1]. The rhetoric, which was born and lived its golden age in times of democracy: Greek and Roman, now seems to take on a akin meaning. In the ancient world, Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Quintilian were among the most prominent rhetoricists.[2]. In the politics of the late 20th century and in the 21st century, it could be, toutes proportions gardées, among others, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair or Barack Obama. Reviving rhetoric, therefore, and language and expression are essential to policy[3] understood, among others, as the ability of groups creating social situations to scope a compromise[4], or activities relating to the creation of the State as a whole[5].
Words-keys
Previous analyses proved that the image is the simplest sign that easy fades into memory. But, according to Jerzy Bralczyk, this word gives a manipulative, clear conceptual content, making available a full array of ambiguous information with different interpretations and orders[6]. A good example of this can be the fact that the expert in the field has stressed. public relations Jerzy Rzędowski, that although present more and more workstations cunningly carry executive or executive names, de facto We meet more and little with real leaders[7]. So words are utilized here not to describe the actual state, but to make an impression[8].
The words that politicians usage should so be carefully chosen so that they do not carry an undesirable alternate meaning. They should besides be decently adapted to the recipients and to the circumstances surrounding the communication process, which is referred to as communication competence. A politician who does not adapt his speech to the audience, utilizing a circumstantial jargon, is frequently understood only for a narrow ellipse of insiders. And if he can't talk consecutive and clear, he's incapable to convince and kidnap the electorate. So success is achieved by those who usage words understood by the average voter, who besides usage “pleasant” and expressive language[9].
The level of language difficulty in speech can be measured utilizing the Gunning Index, an algorithm developed by American businessman Robert Gunning. This is the alleged language vagueness origin and is measured as follows: the ratio of the number of words to the number of sentences should be added to the ratio multiplied by 100 of the number of long words to all words, then multiplied by 0,4[10]. The expression for FOG so looks as follows:
The founding fathers of the United States spoke with a fog ratio close to 26. It was a very hard language, understood only for people very well educated, at the level of doctors and professors. Since then, however, a lot has changed, and businessmen and society have seen the problem of utilizing besides complicated vocabulary. In 1987, Jimmy Carter signed a bill saying that national law acts must be written in a simple, understandable language to the public. From a decade to a decade, the level of difficulty of saying politicians fell. George W. Bush and Barack Obama's speeches are already level 9 and are so understandable to mediate school graduates[11]. A akin indicator is besides shown by British politicians, including Prime Minister David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg[12]. Thus, a politician who wants to keep his popularity should usage as short and simple a word as possible to realize him as much as possible of the electorate.
The second point raised earlier was a affirmative message, as well as a "pleasant" and expressive language. But in order for specified a message to arise, and the message to be credible, the politician should have religion in the views he presents. He should so make what neurolinguistic programming specialists call “the art and discipline of creating individual excellence”[13]or “building a subjective, unique world”[14]and decoders “personal improvement based on cognition of the functioning of human minds”. As Dagmara Pluta says[15]:
The roots of the decodic go back to the huna, or ancient cognition derived from Hawaii, about how to be. Hun is about 35,000 years old and is an ancient strategy of descriptive psychology of man, in a sense resembling psychoanalysis. This strategy teaches you to find interior peace, same - control, and harmony in life. It besides concerns the creation of our own reality and the improvement of our interior spiritual sphere. The combination of one's physicality, reason, emotion and spirituality with this cognition allows us to bring the desired behaviour into the life of a individual and in effect to change our way of being so that we can accomplish more easy what we want (...) I think that president Barack Obama frequently uses it. After all, he was born in Hawaii, so he wanted not to, most likely not only to know the main assumptions of the Hun, but he seems to practice it to this day. This is all seen not only during public speeches or speeches, but besides after his behaviour, gestures, interior peace – he has a very well developed spiritual self-awareness. I fishy that, if not for this, he would not be able to keep specified a affirmative relation with voters and thus enjoy specified advanced public support. specified policies make and make others.... He can talk better or keep interior peace during stressful situations. It has clarity of sight, understanding, ease of decision making, good sense of situation, imagination prospects, more developed intuition and communicativeness. It can besides better anticipate the results of its actions and choose the most optimal and most advantageous solutions for itself.[16].
According to neurolinguistic programming specialists (which de facto It focuses on the conscious selection of right words in communication), it is mostly cognition of how people perceive the planet and what their mechanisms of action are. It includes, among others, elements of psychotherapy and human behaviour techniques and allows to make affirmative changes in the way they think, talk and respond to different situations.[17]. A politician utilizing cognition from these fields is so able to emphasize in his speeches the correct words and destruct those words, the sound of which can torpedo at an unconscious level of the reader's head according to the author's intention the wording of a given statement. Detailed rules for the application of neurolinguistic programming are available in many NLP textbooks and so there is no request to describe them in detail. It is worth noting that the effectiveness of the NLP[18] has never been full proven scientifically[19], like hypnosis and many another psychology issues[20].
Close to the field of neurolinguistic programming, a well-known psychiatrist, David Hawkins, conducted the study. Their results were presented in his publications in the form of a table of alleged strong words, referring to emotions and imaginations, and weak words, which should be avoided in speeches. And so, for example, "abound" is, according to David Hawkins, a strong word, and an "excess" is simply a weak word, a "giving" is simply a strong expression, and a "taking" is simply a weak word, a "glory" is simply a strong word, and a "flavour" is simply a weak word, a "perverse" is simply a strong word, and a "fashion" is simply a weak word.[21]. Hawkins's Works[22] They gained a crucial number of supporters among psychologists and advertising and image-building professionals, including Joe Vitale, the author of planet bestsellers on alleged hypnotic marketing[23].
Another issue in selecting the right vocabulary in political speeches is the adaptation to the transforming atmosphere of the intellectual electorate and its values and beliefs. The words, slogans and electoral slogans should so be selected accordingly.[24]. After planet War II, British politics clashed with 2 views: conservatism sealing the conventional function of women in society (resigning to work in factories, focusing on reproduction) and liberalism, recognizing the desire of the beautiful sex to self-fulfill[25]. Politicians had to juggle their vocabulary efficiently so as not to offend any voters. Conservative option over time status quo She lost, and present it is unthinkable to be raised again. akin controversial issues have ignited societies in subsequent years. The wise, leading politicians had to be careful with words, to apply language correctness[26] and remember that their actions and statements will be cited long after their political careers have ended. The magic of high-ranking speeches is so that it almost always has a powerful audience, its speeches are recorded, and the sentences spoken are most frequently thought-out and prepared by specialized staff of political scientists and marketing professionals.
One specified memorable minute was 1970 erstwhile Jimmy Carter became politician of Georgia. In his inaugural speech, he decided to powerfully emphasize tolerance. Carter, in peril of xenophobic voters, said at the time: “I tell you rather frankly, the time for racial discrimination is over.” He thus noted that in the State Capitol, where there were many portraits of people who deserved Georgia, no of them represented a black individual despite the fact that many Negro activists made a crucial contribution to the improvement of the region. Carter decided to change this and ordered the image of Martin Luther King, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, to hang there as well. This decision was met with a immense discontent of racists and xenophobics who carried out many protests on this issue. Ku-Klux-Klan himself played “cat music” during the image suspension ceremony. 4 years later, Carter's counter-candidate for politician Lester Maddox promised his voters that if he was elected, he would remove the image of the Negro from the Capitol. Xenophobe, however, lost[27], and the issue of race, although inactive to any degree the basis for categorisation, has ceased to be the origin of widespread social exclusion in the US[28].
Carter's words, although he was politician at the time and not president, were for good written on the pages of the past of the United States, and certainly, thanks to the additional support of the liberal and black part of the electorate, brought him closer to later taking over as head of state. Nearly forty years after that event, Barack Obama, whose father was born from the African Luo tribe, took office. Sam, continuing his policy of supporting minorities, just after announcing the result of the ultimate Court ruling on the legalization of single-sex marriages, said: “This is simply a large step in our march towards equality”[29]Which, like Carter, besides sparked a wave of anger from conservative voters. And likewise to the former, the event besides divided society[30]Because Obama was hailed by his opponents as “the first gay president”[31]. Can such, risky statements in terms of political popularity have a affirmative impact on maintaining political popularity? It seems that so, provided, however, that the leader is firmly convinced of their legitimacy, and among the voters of a given liberal decision there is more than its opponents. The preaching of postulates contrary to their own convictions and supported by utmost number views usually ends in failure. As noted by Rafał Trzaskowski[32], Mitt Romney's loss, a 2012 Republican presidential candidate, was primarily due to a besides conservative program that only corresponded to American minorities:
To success... Obama contributed primarily to the Republicans themselves, due to the fact that their politics, colloquially speaking, shot themselves in the leg. This was because, in the primaries, they moved their "right" programme declarations besides much. The Republican candidate, in order to be nominated, had to express very extremist views. On the republican right wing, there were various freaks from the Tea Party. Unfortunately, we must call them in specified a clear way. In any case, the candidate was later very hard to change his head to a more centred, moderate, and to retreat from previous, very harsh statements. It is clear that the presidential elections in the United States focus on the centre of the political scene, not on margins. By trying to soften his position Mitt Romney became completely unreliable. The voters did not buy his sudden, world-view decision towards the center[33].
In conclusion, it is frequently essential to consider the fact that societies, through the gradual acquisition of more and more information about discriminated groups, usually open up to them over time and liberalise their views[34], which in turn causes that over the years the number of opponents of a political decision may decrease and supporters may increase[35]. So they are usually several- or many-year strategies to present themselves to voters as a brave, tolerant leader and assured in their words.[36]. According to social scientist Richard Nisbett, “higher education besides moves us to the left. Universities' graduates are more tolerant, more frequently support the legalisation of marijuana, partnerships"[37]. Moreover, as Longin Pastusiak says:
Each [President – Mr P. R.] He cared for his popularity and paid large attention to it. It is rather interesting to note that now another presidency is judged differently from erstwhile the politicians in question were in the White House. For example, Harry Truman was an exceptionally unpopular president of the United States and had comparatively low ratings. Today, however, historians believe that he was 1 of the best presidents of the United States. In the case of his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, it was the other – he was a very popular, excellent general and had a pleasant way of being. Historians, on the another hand, believe that he has contributed small to the American presidency and are very low on his role. Richard Nixon, on the another hand, had to step down as president, as he was active in the Watergate affair and had evidence low ratings. Today, however, historians justice his character more positively. The position on U.S. Presidents changes over time. present I read an article in the fresh York Times paper that last week George W. Bush's ratings first increased and surpassed the negative assessments of his presidency. It is worth noting that the predecessor of the current president Obama was so far very unpopular, active in the war in Iraq. The assessment of a given presidency varies depending on the situation and on the distance of time – all of this importantly affects the views of the people assessing a given President. Historians themselves frequently verify their judgments in relation to the opinions of contemporary people to the given president – in plus or in minus[38].
—
A fragment of the monograph entitled Model Politics Popular in Anglo-Saxon Countries was published
Author: Paweł Rogalinski
Jagiellonian University Publishing House
Number of pages: 416
—
[1] B. Skowronek, Medicine. Introduction, technological Publishing home of Pedagogical University, Kraków 2013, p. 249.
[2] S. Dubish, Language and politics. Rhetorical past Sketches, Institute of Polish Language University. Department of past of Polish Language and Dialectology, Warsaw 1992, p. 12.
[3] S. D. Ealy Communication, Speech, and Politics. Habermas and Political Analysis, University Press of America, Inc., Washington 1981, p. 2.
[4]Policyhttp://encyclopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/politics;3959606.html, [date of access: 04.12.2015].
[5] The president The Politics of Eloquence, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 2012, pp. 124-125.
[6] The president Language for sale, Gdańsk intellectual Publishing House, Gdansk 2004, p. 191.
[7] J. Rądowski, NLP for the boss, which is how to accomplish targets with another people, Difin Publishing House, Warsaw 2005, p. 137.
[8] The president Language, text, interpretation, State Publishing Institute, Warsaw 1989, pp. 126-127.
[9]Personal Image, http://www.proto.pl/PR/Pdf/Personal_image.pdf, [date of access: 03.12.2015].
[10] M. Dzierżanowski, Uncontrolled conversations, “Wprost”, Warsaw 04.2013, No. 15, pp. 42-44.
[11]Ibid.
[12] N. Collins, David Cameron speed: the Prime Minister’s language analyzed, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8046692/David-Cameron-speech-the-Prime-Ministers-language-analysed.html, [date of access: 04.12.2015].
[13] J. O’Connor, J. Seymour, NLP. Introduction to Neurolinguistic Programming, Wydawnictwo Profit i S-ka, Poznań 1998, p. 21.
[14] R. Prior, J. O’Connor, NLP and compounds. Simple strategies to improve the relationship, Wydawnictwo Profit i S-ka, Poznań 2003, p. 20.
[15] Dagmara Pluta – a philologist, linguist, coach and decodic coach – a set of methods influencing the subconscious and based on cognition of the capabilities of the human mind. postgraduate of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. He presently teaches at The Applied discipline University in Bahrain.
[16] Author's interview with Dagmara Pluta.
[17] G. Ribbens, G. Whitear, Body Language. Instant Manager. Taking Control of Work and Life, Hodder Education, Coventry 2007, pp. 10-11.
[18] The president NLP, http://www.tomaszwitkowski.pl/attachments/File/NLP.pdf, [date of access: 12.12.2015].
[19] The president Massive Collaboration investigating Reproduction of Psychology Studies Publications Findings, http://as.virginia.edu/news/massive-collaboration-testing-reproductionciability-psychology-studies-publishes-findings, [date of access: 12.12.2015].
[20] The president Psychology: Unrepeated studieshttp://election.pl/1,75400,18705157,psychology-research-not-to-repeat.html, [date of access: 12.12.2015].
[21] J. Vitale, Hypnotic Marketing, Golden Thoughts Publishing, Gliwice 2006, p. 192.
[22]Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D. Ph.D.,http://www.hayhouse.com/autorbio/david-r-hawkins-m-d-ph-d, [date of access: 04.12.2015].
[23] C. M. Thompson, The Map Of Consciousness – Hawkins’ Scale,http://www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2012/01/the-map-of-consciousness-hawkins-scale/, [date of access: 04.12.2015].
[24] H. M. Kula, How to effectively organise an election run to local authorities. Electoral run in a pill, L&L Publishing House, Gdańsk 2006, p. 93.
[25] W. Crofts, Coersion or Persuasion? Propaganda in Britain after 1945, Routledge, Lonon-New York 1989, p. 91.
[26] The president Language correctness and the luck of marketing texts, [in:] K. Michalewski (ed.), Language in marketing, Boat 2008, pp. 93-94.
[27] The president U.S. presidents in anecdote. From Truman..., op. cit.p. 152.
[28] W. G. Stephan, C. W. Stephan, Impact by groups. relation Psychology, Gdańsk intellectual Publishing House, Gdańsk 2007, p. 21.
[29]The U.S. legalizes gay marriage. Obama: “This is simply a large step in our march towards equality”,http://www.pch24.en/-legalizes-homo-marriage–bama–to-duzy-crok-in-our-marsz-ku-rival,36619,i.html, [date of access: 02.12.2015].
[30] D. Byers, Newsweek Cover: 'The First Gay President',http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/newsweek-cover-the-first-gay-president-123283, [date of access: 02.12.2015].
[31]Barack Obama is simply a raging homosexual, http://christnire.org/2009/02/barack-obama-is-a-raging-homosexual/, [date of access: 02.12.2015].
[32] Dr Rafał Trzaskowski – politician, doctor of humanities, associate of the European Parliament for the 7th term, b. associate of the European Parliament delegation for relations with the United States, b. Minister of Administration and Digitisation, b. State Secretary, Ministry of abroad Affairs, associate of the 8th Parliament. He graduated from the European College in Natolin and studied at the Institute of global Relations at the University of Warsaw. In 2004, he obtained a Ph.D. in Humanities Sciences in Political Sciences at the Faculty of Journalism and Political Sciences of the University of Warsaw.
[33] The author's interview with Rafał Trzaskowski.
[34] M. Wójcik, Effectiveness of circumstantial and non-specific ways to change negative cultural stereotypes, PhD, University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice 2008, pp. 42-43.
[35] W. G. Stephan, C. W. Stephan, Influence... p. 8-12.
[36] The president Scientists prove – right-wing people are not very intelligent,http://www.newsweek.pl/polska/scientists-led—people-right-no-sa-too-smart,91884,1.1.html, [access date: 20.07.2018].
[37] The president Smarten up, man. Talk to prof. Richard Nisbett,http://election.pl/magazine/1,152470,20070051,zsmarter-czlowiec.html, [date of access: 18.07.2016].
[38] L. Pastusiak, Americans... op. cit.
![Chełm. W ubiegłym tygodniu odeszli od nas... [15-11-2026]](https://static2.supertydzien.pl/data/articles/xga-4x3-chelm-w-ubieglym-tygodniu-odeszli-od-nas-8-11-2026-1794699307.jpg)
