It is in a sense an old book, due to the fact that it is simply a resumption of the volume Nowomowa in Polish, published in 1990 in the Open release containing my sketches written in the 1970s and 1980s.[...] However, it is simply a fresh book in its own way, due to the fact that it contains 4 of my texts, written between 2006 and 2007, mainly concerning the authoritative language of the then ruling and inspired propaganda team. This message is not random. Although ideologically divergent, seemingly at other ends, these 2 messages are astoundingly similar, they uncover akin semantic mechanisms and closely related rhetorical practices. I will not make the substance here, imposing with large force analogies will see the reader without the aid of an introductory comment. Unfortunately, this kind of public language has not disappeared, so the substance is inactive valid. (from the publisher's mate)
Universitas publications thank you for sharing a passage for publication. We encourage you to read the full book.
Language Drama
1
I will start with a individual theme: for almost a 4th of a century, I have been engaged in the language of communist propaganda, called George Orwell the fresh Testament, and my books, devoted to this dreary phenomenon, have been her kind of chronicle from the mid-1960s to the minute of systemic change. I thought that I would never gotta come back to this issue as a current issue again, I thought that it was just a substance of historical interest to researchers of various fields of PRL reality. Naïvely I assumed that all of these so crucial for authoritative dispatch in real socialism semantic mechanisms are already a substance of the backdrop of the past in Poland, although I realized that somewhere on the margins there are utmost political groups, primarily right-wing (extreme left is so marginal that small is known about its existence), utilizing the language according to sanctioned totalitarian designs, they are, however, a niche phenomenon, although at a scope which should not be underestimated[1]. late the situation has changed: the ruling team's speech began to be astoundingly reminiscent of the authoritative message in force in the countries of the alleged socialist camp, revived semantic mechanisms, which – as may be thought (it appears besides optimistic) – have forever passed to the past.
We observe a phenomenon that may seem paradoxical and be treated as a circumstantial spite of history: a group which, out of anti-communism, has made its perfect foundation, and from decommunisation – 1 of the primaries, operates the language in a way that not only resembles the practices of communist power, but sometimes can be an astonishing repetition of them.
However, it is more than just an illustration of a well-known French saying that the marginal elements come into contact with each other, it is simply a substance without comparison more serious, it is about the existence of certain reasoning structures, and so besides about the rules for building discourse, which are above the straight expressed expressis verbis, ideology, about certain visions of the world, seemingly contrastingly different and indeed having common properties. They can be called a variety, 1 can talk about the pursuit of absolute power and full control of social awareness and social discourse, but besides about clear totalitarian tendencies. This general category comes in today's situation with large power.
The foundation on which the language utilized by the current ruling team, its supporters and propagandists, is based consists of 3 essential elements. The first is consistently a dichotomic imagination of the world, not allowing any nuances or complications. We are representatives of the good (one of its main politicians defined briefly and narrowly as its personification!), we preach the right ideas, we have the best, and indeed the only, program to repair the country. He who does not stand up for him and complains to him is against us. The dichotomic division is straight linked to the next factor: the determinant of this message is the thought of the enemy. The enemy is, at least perhaps, anyone on the another side. It follows that this language is not a language of compromise, that all settlement solutions are outside its borders[2]. So either you submit, and then you will be ours, or if you rebel against us or at all you represent views and aspirations that we do not approve, you are the enemy. We can call you a variety: a growling, an heir to the ZOMO, a post-communist or a communist, however, however, nevertheless much a name, and in fact a word disqualified you in the social opinion (we have here equivalents of specified terms, characteristic of the speech of power in People's Poland, like the enemy of the people, revisionist, agent of imperialism, Zionist, etc.). With dichotomial divisions and with the exposition of the enemy figure, the 3rd origin is closely linked: conspiracy imagination of the world. He who does not share our ideas is not only on the another side, not only the enemy, but constantly plotting. We fight those who plot, make mysterious agreements, effort to prevent us in our actions, act to the detriment of the nation, the state, the Church and, above all, against the interests of Poland.
Consequently, the language utilized by authority must be the language of combat, or, in another words, the language of increased aggression.
Unfortunately, we are given the chance to meet constantly with this kind of speech, due to the fact that it is the main form of sending power.
2
The expression of the "language of power" is not unambiguous, due to the fact that it can specify various, sometimes highly contrasting phenomena. Each power uses, which is obvious, any language, in a circumstantial way operates in words, adopts specified or another stylistic patterns, and specifically constructs appropriate discourses. In this area, the scale of opportunities is enormous: from typical authoritarian governments to persuasional texts respecting the right to free reasoning of those to whom they are addressed. I would like to draw attention to 1 aspect of this phenomenon, possibly not in all historical situation most important, but to specified an degree that it is worth considering. The basic question arises: how does the authority treat the language, or as a kind of property, which it is entitled to, as it were, by the simple fact that it governs, and thus has the right to decide and does not feel limited in any way in this area, or as a common good shared with those to whom it addresses? Of course, it is not a substance of specified or another declarations, it is simply a question of practice, due to the fact that it is simply a substance of practice, due to the fact that it is said erstwhile it is thought that this language, which is judged to be its own, only right, proper, language, which is to be subject to the authority of ideology, or erstwhile it respects languages functioning in society. In another words, whether it is simply a monophonic concept of speech, or a polyphonic concept that takes into account the pluralistic nature of society.
