The Paradox of Political Language
There’s a paradox in modern attitudes about political language. Left and right may disagree as to which expressions count as deceptive packaging and which are merely effective branding, but both sides acknowledge that the American public is particularly susceptible to linguistic manipulation. Yet it’s also fair to say that there has never been an age that was so wary of the mischief that language can work or so alert to the dangers of political euphemism and indirection. How did we come to this point? Are political and public figures really more mendacious than they used to be, or does it reflect a changing media role or an increasingly polarized political climate? Why is widespread sophistication no impediment to the misleading use of language, and why do many of the most successful linguistic maneuvers pass our radar undetected?
Geoffrey Nunberg is an adjunct full professor at UC Berkeley's School of Information Management and Systems. He serves as chair of the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, offers regular commentaries on language on the NPR show "Fresh Air", and writes on language for the Sunday New York Times Week in Review, as well as for other periodicals.
Geoff's book Going Nucular (2004), was selected by Amazon.com as one of the Ten Best Nonfiction Books that year and as one of the "Top 10 Books of the Year" by the San Jose Mercury News. His most recent book is Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned LIberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show (July 2006, PublicAffairs).
Geoff was a researcher at Xerox PARC from 1987 to 2001.
Our work is centered around a series of Focus Areas that we believe are the future of science and technology.
We’re continually developing new technologies, many of which are available for Commercialization.