1(2)2016+.pdf


The Maxim of Truth 
in Political Interviews

For centuries language and politics have beenpermanently interwoven. This interaction reveals not
only politics itself but the capacity of  human language.

Politics is mainly viewed as a struggle for power. This
approach deals with the 

political institutions of the state canonized in the
Constitution, civil and legal codes, state institutions and
parties, the speeches of professional politicians, interest
groups, etc.

According to P. Chilton, politics is a means of cooperation
within different layers of a society for determining clashes of
interest over money and influence, which presupposes
conflicts of dominance between individuals, genders, social

groups of various kinds (Chilton 2004).
In totalitarian countries, a political system is implemented exclusively by violence

and force. In contrast, politics in a democratic nation demands persuasion, truth and civil
morality bound by the paramount grip of language. Politics is thus predominantly the use
of language. Only in and through language can one issue commands and threats, ask
questions, and make offers and promises. Only language can provide a political
institution with an outlet to declare war, claim innocence or guilt in court, and raise or
lower taxes. 

The use of language can also create an institution. For example, swearing an oath is
a specific institution which presupposes special legal training carried out by a
professional lawyer. Swearing an oath is at the same time an act of speech. 

Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics have adopted a completely different approach to
the language of politicians, revealing the discrepancy between what is said and what is
meant. “In the European and American cultural contexts, politicians are generally
expected to act better and thus be better than ordinary people. They are expected to be
faultless, perfect citizens, who not only preach but also practice what they preach. In
other words, the private and public domains of politicians are expected to be coherent.
Unfortunately, very often in politics a speaker may say something but actually mean
something else” (Fetzer 2002). Politicians are said to employ numerous indirect speech
acts in order to remain diplomatically unclear about controversial issues. The
differentiation between direct and indirect communicative intention in politics is quite
relevant within the sphere of political interview. 

What do the following communicative situations have in common - an ordinary,
mundane, face-to-face conversation and a special type of interaction known as a political
interview? 

61

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

Armine Simonyan