ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
32
RHETORICAL FUNCTIONS OF EUPHEMISMS IN CRISIS COMMUNICATION BY
POLITICAL LEADERS
Sharafutdinov Nodirxon Sultanovich
Teacher at Kokand university
Abstract:
This paper explores the strategic use of euphemisms in political leaders’ crisis
communication through the lens of Aristotelian rhetoric. Euphemisms, often dismissed as mere
politeness, serve powerful rhetorical functions in shaping public perception during times of
national or international crises such as pandemics, wars, or economic downturns. By employing
ethos, pathos, and logos, euphemisms are utilized to reduce public panic, deflect responsibility,
and reinforce authority. The study draws from rhetorical and crisis communication theories and
offers a comparative analysis of political leaders' speeches during various crises, including
COVID-19, military interventions, and economic collapses. The findings suggest that
euphemistic language plays a central role in constructing politically favorable narratives, often
at the expense of transparency. Understanding these rhetorical choices is essential for
promoting critical public engagement and ethical communication in governance.
Introduction
In times of crisis, the words political leaders choose carry enormous weight. Their language
must inspire confidence, provide clarity, and prevent widespread panic. However, clarity is not
always the priority. Instead, euphemisms—mild or indirect expressions substituted for harsh or
unsettling realities—are often employed to soften the impact of difficult truths. Far from being
mere linguistic decorations, euphemisms serve vital rhetorical functions, particularly during
crises where public trust and perception are at stake.
Drawing upon Aristotelian rhetorical appeals—ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal),
and logos (logical reasoning)—this paper analyzes how euphemisms are used in political
speeches to manage crises. In this context, euphemisms can reduce public anxiety, shield
leaders from blame, and reframe negative realities into manageable or even virtuous challenges.
Using a comparative approach, this study examines how leaders across different political
systems use euphemistic language during critical events such as the COVID-19 pandemic,
military conflicts, and economic meltdowns.
Main Part
1. Euphemism as Rhetorical Strategy: An Aristotelian Perspective
Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion—ethos, pathos, and logos—remain foundational in
rhetorical theory. Political leaders in crisis often combine these appeals through euphemistic
language to achieve specific outcomes.
- Ethos (Credibility): Leaders project trustworthiness by speaking calmly and rationally.
Euphemisms like “temporary inconvenience” for lockdowns or “operational pause” for military
retreats maintain a composed tone, reinforcing the speaker’s control over the situation.
- Pathos (Emotional Appeal): Euphemisms often tap into collective emotions. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, terms like “social distancing” (instead of “forced isolation”) invoked
communal responsibility rather than fear, framing compliance as a moral duty.
- Logos (Logical Reasoning): Euphemistic language can appear objective or technical. For
ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
33
example, “quantitative easing” during economic crises sounds analytical, disguising what is
essentially large-scale money printing.
2. Euphemisms in Health Crises: The COVID-19 Pandemic
The global COVID-19 pandemic offers a rich case study of euphemistic rhetoric. Governments
worldwide struggled to balance transparency with the need to avoid public panic. Leaders
employed a wide range of euphemisms:
- “Shelter in place” instead of “lockdown” in the U.S., suggesting protection rather than
restriction.
- “Circuit breaker” in Singapore, framing restrictions as temporary and technical, much like an
electrical reset.
- “Flattening the curve” provided a visual metaphor to suggest manageable progress,
downplaying death rates.
These terms were not neutral. They shaped the public’s emotional response (pathos), reinforced
trust in institutional authority (ethos), and gave the impression of scientific rationality (logos).
3. War and Conflict: Sanitizing Violence Through Euphemism
Military and geopolitical conflicts are frequently narrated using euphemisms to preserve
national morale and justify action.
- “Surgical strikes” implies precision and cleanliness, reducing the mental image of bloodshed.
- “Neutralize the threat” avoids the direct mention of killing.
- “Collateral damage” masks the civilian cost of military action.
These euphemisms serve to manage pathos by minimizing the emotional weight of war. At the
same time, they enhance ethos, as leaders present themselves as careful, deliberate decision-
makers. In speeches during the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush repeatedly used the
phrase “weapons of mass destruction,” a term that framed the war as preventive and justified,
even though evidence was lacking—a logical appeal (logos) with ethically questionable
implications.
4. Economic Crises and Euphemistic Rebranding
In economic downturns, euphemisms help governments maintain public confidence. For
instance:
- “Economic adjustment” or “fiscal discipline” for austerity.
- “Workforce optimization” for mass layoffs.
- “Quantitative easing” for inflationary monetary policies.
These phrases obscure the real impact on citizens’ lives, instead presenting crises as necessary
recalibrations. This use of logos appears analytical and rational, while sidestepping emotional
distress. During the 2008 financial crisis, many leaders used terms like “market correction” to
avoid admitting systemic failure. These euphemisms reinforced ethos, suggesting the crisis was
under expert control.
5. Comparative Rhetorical Practices
While the core rhetorical functions remain consistent, cultural and political contexts influence
euphemistic usage. For example:
ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
34
- Authoritarian regimes (e.g., China) often employ strict control over crisis terminology, such
as calling the early COVID-19 outbreak a “public health incident” to delay panic and scrutiny.
- Democratic leaders tend to mix euphemisms with reassurance. For instance, New Zealand
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern used phrases like “stay in your bubble,” combining
metaphorical language with community-focused messaging.
The rhetorical function of euphemisms, therefore, adapts to local political expectations, but
their core function—to manage perception during crisis—remains universal.
Conclusion
Euphemisms are indispensable tools in the rhetorical toolkit of political leaders during times of
crisis. Whether through war, pandemic, or economic collapse, such language is employed to
protect public morale, maintain authority, and frame harsh realities in digestible terms. By
embedding euphemisms within the Aristotelian framework of ethos, pathos, and logos,
politicians craft narratives that often prioritize persuasion over transparency.
This article has shown that euphemistic language serves as a mechanism of both comfort and
control. It can reduce panic, foster unity, and present complex problems as solvable. However,
it can also obscure truth, delay critical responses, and erode democratic accountability.
A critical awareness of euphemistic rhetoric—especially in crisis communication—is essential
for citizens and analysts alike. Only by understanding the persuasive architecture behind such
language can we engage more deeply and responsibly with political discourse.
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. (2003). Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S.
Foreign Policy. University of Chicago Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). *Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research*.
Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (2004). *Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the
Debate*. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). *Communication and
Organizational Crisis*. Praeger.
Wodak, R. (2020). *The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean*.
SAGE.
Zarefsky, D. (2006). *Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation*. Argumentation,
20(3), 297–309.
