There is little joy to be had listening to politicians these days. This was confirmed by interviewer David Speers recently as he prepared to take over the ABC’s Insiders.
People are just switching off, Speers noted. His explanation? “Our leaders just don’t talk to us in the way that real people do.”
Linguistics can shed light on what he means by this.
Fifty years ago, British philosopher of language Paul Grice proposed a model to explain how meaningful communication between speakers is made possible.
Key to this is our dependence on certain co-operative norms. Grice dubbed these the “maxims of conversation”.
He identified four:
- Being truthful (quality)
- Being relevant (relation)
- Saying no more and no less than is required (quantity)
- Being clear (manner).
Many of the less-than-impressive aspects of politicians’ talk can be understood in terms of how these basic principles are violated.
Let me illustrate with examples from our prime minister’s recent communications.
Maxim of quality
Be truthful. Do not say what you know or believe to be false.
While we expect basic truthfulness in conversations with our fellows, this has never been a requirement for a successful political career (see “the Iraqi regime has weapons of mass destruction”).
Our PM is beginning to chalk up something of record in this area. A recent standout case was his claim to have had a conversation with the young pregnant woman during his ill-fated visit to Cobargo. The video evidence shows the PM turning his back on the woman and walking away.
The out-and-out lie is sadly becoming more and more a feature of modern political discourse. Its prevalence in this country would reward greater investigation. The New York Times now keeps a tally of Trumpian untruths.
Arguably more common, however — and probably more insidious — is the carefully concocted half-truth. Our PM has a particularly assured and forceful way of delivering these. Thus, the following from his recent National Press Club address:
Question: So why did you [administer the sports funds] that way?
PM: To support local communities … and to ensure that girls didn’t have to change out the back of the shed.
Linguistic studies have shown that acts of verbal deception are often associated with certain give-away voice cues: hesitations, speech errors, pause frequency.
It seems a particular talent of the PM that these are rarely detectable in his delivery.
Maxim of relation
Be relevant. Talk about what is pertinent to the conversation.
David Speers notes the entrenched techniques of politicians used to subvert this maxim of relevance: scripted messages and talking points, sometimes repeated at absurd length.
The PM has honed his own particular techniques here. One of the more notable ones is to pivot quickly away from giving any account of his actions (a past tense timeframe) and to move straight into the realm of the present and future.
Thus, at the National Press Club, the first question he faced was an invitation to reflect on his handling (or mishandling) of events over the summer:
Question: … if you had your time again, what would you have done differently?
And the response:
PM: … Well, what I tend to do is focus on the tasks that I need to do each and every day.
The impression intended in such a switch is of a man unencumbered by the past, whose gaze is always fixed on the nation and its future. In short, an action man.
Maxim of quantity
Say no more and no less than what is required.
The commentaries of politicians invariably give us the inverse of these two requirements — too much of what we don’t want (verbiage), and not enough of what we do (genuinely important information).
Scott Morrison has shown himself an adept violator of both these principles.
Regarding the former (a surfeit of information), the PM has a particular gift for simply running on, the function of which is to run down the clock in interviews, so limiting the number of questions that can be asked.
However, it is in avoiding giving information that the PM really shines. These are the now notorious ScoMo shutdowns.
Thus, along with the standard clichés — e.g. “I reject the premise of your question” and “I don’t respond to hypotheticals” — Morrison draws on a range of unique slogans coined over his career: “on water matters”; “that’s a bubble question”; “that’s gossip”; and “that’s not even a debate”.
British linguist, Peter Bull has identified 35 different ways that politicians avoid interview questions. Many of these feature in the PM’s playbook.
Maxim of manner
Be clear, avoid ambiguities, organise your thoughts in meaningful ways.
We all struggle to be clear in the messages we convey. For politicians, the struggle often seems to be in achieving the reverse effect.
How else are we to explain the following construction from the PM when asked at his Press Club appearance about his office’s involvement in the Bridget McKenzie sports rorts affair?
PM: All we did was provide information on the representations made to us.
What many assume to have been the active involvement of the PM’s office in the rorts affair here becomes the “providing of information on representations”. It will be the task of journalists in the days ahead to uncover what that tortured phrase might actually mean.
The public’s faith and trust in politicians seems in terminal decline nowadays. One way to arrest this decline would be to simply require them to speak more like real people.
Timothy Moore is a lecturer in linguistics and literacy at Swinburne University of Technology.
On a recent visit to the Cook Islands we were stunned to hear a government minister speaking on the TV news (there’s only one channel). He was explaining the options and the reasons behind their preferred choice for a new inter-island passenger ship. What struck us was the way he looked into the camera and spoke in a natural, conversational style as if he was telling you as a friend, over a coffee, just exactly what his thought process was. It was followed by the health minister (a woman wearing a floral headdress) who similarly had a chat to try to justify a controversial new policy. It was so strikingly different to what we are used to here – and very refreshing. It would be fascinating to see what would ensue if our local pollies dropped their facade.
On a recent visit to the Cook Islands we were stunned to hear a government minister speaking on the TV news (there’s only one channel). He was explaining the options and the reasons behind their preferred choice for a new inter-island passenger ship. What struck us was the way he looked into the camera and spoke in a natural, conversational style as if he was telling you as a friend, over a coffee, just exactly what his thought process was. It was followed by the health minister (a woman wearing a floral headdress) who similarly had a chat to try to justify a controversial new policy. It was so strikingly different to what we are used to here – and very refreshing. It would be fascinating to see what would ensue if our local pollies dropped their facade.
Reckon those parts of the media – playing politics and playing favourites – with a two-stoke approach to ‘editing’/framing how we get to see politics – haven’t had just as big an influence (if not greater) in turning us off?
SBS showed a documentary some years ago about the Liberal campaign in the 1996 election, mainly following Howard around.
Every time he was asked “What is the Liberal Party’s policy on getting unemployment down?”, he answered “Our policy is to do everything we can to increase the number of jobs” or words to that effect. No matter how the question was phrased or how many times it was asked, or what the follow-up question was, eg “how are you going to do that”, he repeated the same answer.
The media at the time could have made a story about how Howard would repeatedly not answer a straightforward question with anything other than a motherhood statement but they didn’t. They just showed Howard’s answer and moved on. Compare that to asking Shorten the cost of energy transition and emissions reduction.
If the media could occasionally think a little outside the box instead of following the same tired old practices, they would serve their customers better than is the case.
The “media” are too scared they’d lose access by asking questions and scrutinising – or upsetting their boss by pursuing accountability.
Until people physically or metaphorically camp on the doorstep of the electorate offices of politicians and remind them that we actually exist and that they are elected to represent us not rule us, not to do the bidding of their mates or donors and not to set things up for themselves either now or in the after life away from politics politicians will ignore us. Unfortunately those criticisms apply not just to the LNP, just take a look at the Labor politicians, including those of left wing factions, who have gone to work for the dark side, corporations or organisations that can hardly be accused of having the interests of ‘ordinary’ people at heart e.g. the banks, or who use family trusts. If you do that you may get a better idea of the distance between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Well said. The Australian electorate need consider what we truly need from Elected Members . . . and bloody well hold them to it. Why is it we go to water on the latter?
Inviscerate the individual. Keep focus. Relentless in exposure of his/her fault-lines. Bring about a status of liability as viewed by Party colleagues. ‘Unimpressed’ pushes the right button: ” . . . they are elected to represent us; not rule us.” Trivializing political representatives contempt of we the hoi polloi just reinforces their self belief that ‘they’ rule! This current government’s rejection of accountability/transparency perfectly illustrates their transition.
Exactly. And, as a side issue, I have noted that Leigh Sales OAM has started to push back when political interviewees head off on their tangent and avoid the question. Excellent, and about time. However, she has a long way to go before she is anywhere near the rapier-like Sarah Fergusson who sliced to the heart and allowed no wriggle room.
She’s always done it with Labor and the Greens – now she’s starting on her Coalition? What’s wrong with her?
If you were the primary breadwinner with a child with high level care needs and your employer has already demonstrated that even though they are a Commonwealth Corporation, they are very dependent upon funding and the board which has been stacked with people who actually don’t like independent reporting, most people would unconsciously be a bit more circumspect with the people in power.
The funding which is always cut when the LNP have been in power, 6 years of cuts after the GFC and the John Howard years were brought sharply into focus when they were playing an Australian story about Paul Hogan, John Cornell and the Mojo team.
A clip played, was reflecting upon the cuts to the ABC which had James Dibble playing the News Sound track on his clarinet and then reading the ABC news.
Good, about time. She has been letting Morrison and Cormann and Frydenberg run off at the mouth for too long, while she was more than happy to skewer Shorten.
Agree Sarah Ferguson was far superior, as is Emma Alberici, but she has been sent off to the naughty corner.
And isn’t there a moral in that story!