journal of linguistic studies

sociolinguistic character, they largely depend on the communication surroundings, on the
topic which is being discussed, on the viewpoints of the speaker and the listener, on the
cultural and civilizational level and on a number of other factors. Thus euphemisms avoid
the possibility of clear and precise defining, so the definitions which are offered in
different dictionaries often differ significantly. 2 Or, as it was emphasized by Branko
Kuna:
“…(euphemisms) are diversely evaluated and graded, and they can be regarded
as indicators of language elegance, of political correctness, of respect of the right
to be different, of verbal hygiene, but also as a means of ideological
manipulation: by distorting, falsifying or concealing the reality (truth).” (Kuna
2007) 3
Although in the daily communication “the process of euphemization is almost a
condition without which any adequate, appropriate and socially acceptable speech is
hardly conceivable” 4 , some of the basic characteristics of euphemisms undoubtedly
indicate the possibility of abuse of these expressions, especially if they are used in media,
of whose journalist functional style they are an inseparable part. In this way, media can
exercise considerable influence on the formation, transformation or (re)direction of public
opinion, on the political stability or instability, on the acceptance or rejection of certain
actions of political parties or institutions of government, which can often have
immeasurable consequences for an area much wider than that which these media directly
address.
2. USAGE OF EUPHEMISMS IN POLITICS, POLITICAL SPEECHES AND
MEDIA
For politics and media euphemisms are especially precious as a means that enables
them to present even the most unpopular contents in a manner that will justify or mitigate
almost every, even the greatest evil, or even proclaim its necessity in the given moment.
There are many examples from the past which clearly illustrate the proportions that the
abuse of language can reach.
Hitler’s regime managed for years to hold the majority of its people and a good part
of the international community in a delusion in respect of the real meaning and function
of numerous concentration (transit) and labour camps as a means for achieving the final
solution and creation of Lebensraum - living space for the Arian race. However the
expression final solution was almost never followed by its second part which completes
the concept and gives it a completely different, true, much more definite and much clearer
meaning – the idea behind this euphemism was in fact the final solution of the ‘Jewish
question’ through physical liquidation of (not just one) entire nation. It was an act, which
the law identifies as genocide or crime against the humanity and the mankind (yet another
euphemism). These camps were neither common camps for prisoners (or simply prisons)
in which, just as elsewhere around the world, the “unwelcome elements” and the
“opponents” of the regime were supposed to be kept under control, nor were they real
work camps in which “the work liberates”; they were places in which millions of people
were exposed to extreme humiliation and suffering. The true purpose of these places was
for quite a long time concealed behind the mentioned euphemisms, which have
58