ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
29
COGNITIVE FRAMING OF EUPHEMISMS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: A
CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR APPROACH
Sharafutdinov Nodirxon Sultanovich
Teacher at Kokand university
Abstract:
This paper explores how euphemisms function as cognitive and rhetorical tools in
political discourse, focusing particularly on the use of conceptual metaphors. Drawing on
Lakoff’s theory of conceptual metaphor and the broader framework of cognitive linguistics, the
study examines how politicians manipulate language to frame controversial issues such as war,
immigration, and economic crises. Euphemistic language, often perceived merely as a tool for
politeness or indirectness, is shown to play a far more significant role in shaping public
perception, minimizing perceived damage, and justifying ideological positions. Case studies of
political speeches reveal how euphemisms like "collateral damage," "enhanced interrogation,"
or "undocumented migrants" are underpinned by metaphorical structures that influence
cognition and moral judgment. This paper argues that understanding the cognitive framing
power of euphemisms is crucial for uncovering the deeper manipulative potential of political
rhetoric.
Introduction
Language is never neutral, especially in the realm of politics. Political discourse is designed not
only to convey information but also to persuade, justify, and manipulate public opinion. One of
the most effective linguistic tools used in political speech is the euphemism—a mild or indirect
expression substituted for one considered too harsh or blunt. However, euphemisms are not
merely rhetorical devices to soften impact; they also engage the listener’s cognitive framework,
reshaping how information is mentally processed.
Drawing upon George Lakoff's theory of conceptual metaphor, this paper examines how
euphemisms in political discourse function within broader cognitive models. According to
Lakoff, metaphor is not simply a poetic or decorative device, but a fundamental mechanism of
thought. Through metaphors, abstract and complex experiences are understood in terms of
more familiar concepts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). When euphemisms are embedded in such
metaphors, they not only obscure unpleasant realities but also activate mental frames that
legitimize certain worldviews or policies.
This study analyzes how euphemistic expressions in political speeches use metaphorical and
cognitive structures to frame sensitive issues such as war, immigration, and economic reform.
By doing so, it contributes to our understanding of the intersection between language, thought,
and power in political communication.
Main Part
1. Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Political Language
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) introduced the idea that metaphors structure human thought. For
example, the conceptual metaphor "ARGUMENT IS WAR" manifests in expressions like "He
shot down my argument" or "She attacked my position." Similarly, in political contexts,
metaphors shape how people perceive policies and actions. For instance, when war is framed as
"surgical intervention," it activates a frame of precision, necessity, and care rather than
destruction and death (Lakoff, 2004).
ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
30
In the cognitive model, euphemisms are closely linked to metaphorical framing. A euphemism
like "collateral damage" is not merely a polite way of referring to civilian casualties; it draws
on metaphors from business or engineering, where "collateral" is a secondary or unintended
effect. This metaphorical framing de-emphasizes human loss and presents death as an
unfortunate side effect rather than a central concern (Chilton, 2004).
2. Euphemisms as Framing Devices
Framing refers to the selection and emphasis of certain aspects of a perceived reality (Entman,
1993). Politicians use euphemisms to frame controversial topics in ways that support their
ideological goals. For example:
- "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for torture. The phrase activates a
technical or scientific frame, suggesting expertise, effectiveness, and legality (Jackson, 2005).
- "Undocumented migrants" vs. "illegal aliens": Both terms describe the same group of people,
but the former frames them as lacking paperwork (a bureaucratic issue), while the latter
invokes criminality and foreignness (Santa Ana, 2002).
These euphemisms are not accidental. They are carefully chosen to activate mental models that
align with the speaker’s agenda. In Lakoff’s (2004) work *Don’t Think of an Elephant!*, he
explains how conservatives and liberals often use different metaphors to structure political
discourse. The use of euphemistic metaphors is central to this framing battle.
3. Case Studies: War, Immigration, and the Economy
During military interventions, governments often rely on euphemisms to maintain public
support. "Collateral damage" minimizes the horror of civilian deaths by framing them as
technical accidents. Similarly, "friendly fire" obscures the tragedy of accidentally killing one’s
own troops. Both phrases rely on metaphorical reasoning to sanitize violence and reduce
emotional backlash (Chilton, 2004; Charteris-Black, 2005).
In the U.S. immigration debate, the term "Dreamers" (referring to undocumented immigrants
brought as children) invokes hope, innocence, and ambition. This metaphor aligns with the
American Dream narrative. In contrast, terms like "flood" or "invasion" dehumanize migrants
and activate metaphors of natural disasters or warfare, fostering fear and urgency (Santa Ana,
2002).
In economic policy, euphemisms such as "downsizing", "fiscal discipline", or "structural
reform" obscure the social costs of job cuts or austerity measures. These terms frame painful
policies as responsible management rather than as deliberate choices that harm vulnerable
populations. The metaphors often come from medicine or sports, creating an illusion of
necessity and expertise (Fairclough, 2003).
4. Ethical and Democratic Implications
While euphemisms serve communicative purposes, their strategic use in politics raises ethical
questions. When language is used to manipulate rather than inform, it undermines the
transparency and accountability central to democratic governance. By reframing violence,
inequality, or injustice as benign or technical matters, euphemisms can desensitize the public
and reduce critical engagement (Chilton, 2004).
From a cognitive perspective, repeated exposure to euphemistic metaphors can reshape
ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
31
collective understanding. Over time, people may begin to think in terms of these frames,
accepting euphemized realities as normal or inevitable (Lakoff, 2004).
Conclusion
Euphemisms in political discourse are far more than linguistic niceties—they are powerful
cognitive and rhetorical tools. Through metaphorical framing, they influence how individuals
conceptualize complex issues, from war to immigration to economic policy. Drawing on
Lakoff’s conceptual metaphor theory, this paper has shown that euphemistic language shapes
not only how politicians present their actions, but also how the public perceives and judges
them.
The strategic deployment of euphemisms serves to mask unpleasant truths, justify controversial
decisions, and align public thought with specific ideological frameworks. Recognizing the
cognitive mechanisms behind euphemisms is essential for developing critical media literacy
and fostering more transparent political communication.
In an age of disinformation and rhetorical manipulation, uncovering the hidden metaphors
behind political euphemisms becomes not just an academic task, but a democratic imperative.
References:
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). *Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor*.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Chilton, P. (2004). *Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice*. Routledge.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. *Journal of
Communication*, 43(4), 51–58.
Fairclough, N. (2003). *Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research*.
Routledge.
Jackson, R. (2005). *Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-
terrorism*. Manchester University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2004). *Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate*.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). *Metaphors we live by*. University of Chicago Press.
Santa Ana, O. (2002). *Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary American
public discourse*. University of Texas Press.
