Political language variation: stylistic based study



  • Ida Bagus Putrayasa Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Indonesia


morphology, personification, political language variation, stylistics, syntax


This study aimed at finding out the figures of speech used by the government in the political language variation and the purposes to which they serve. On the basis of the data analysis, it was found that there are sixteen types of figures of speech contained in the political language variation, for example, euphemism, repetition, parallelism, personification, parable, anticlimax, sarcasm, trope, hyperbole, pleonasm, climax, antithesis, synecdoche, anaphor, allusion, and metonymy. The purposes of their uses are to vary sentences, to show respect, to express something in a polite manner, and to give an emphasis or stress meanings. The suggestion made in relation to the uses of the figures of speech in political language variation is for the authority (government) to use words or phrases that are simple to make it easy for the people to understand.


Download data is not yet available.


Abrams, P. (1983). The theory of limiting similarity. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 14(1), 359-376.

Alwasilah, A. C. (1997). Politik bahasa dan pendidikan. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Aronoff, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of Linguistics, The. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Wiley.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1990). Penelitian Kualitatif untuk Pendidikan. Jakarta: Pusat Antar Universitas.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). W. 1994. Research Design Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches.

Denscombe, M. (1998). The good guide for small scale social research projects.

Enkvist, N. E. (2016). Linguistic stylistics (Vol. 5). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Fatah, E. S. (1999). Otoritarianisme dan distorsi bahasa. In Makalah disajikan pada Seminar Politik Bahasa, di Cisarua, Bogor, tanggal (pp. 9-1).

Fetzer, A., & Weizman, E. (2006). Political discourse as mediated and public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.014

Halmari, H. (2011). Political correctness, euphemism, and language change: The case of ‘people first’. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 828-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.016

Hartoko, D. (1986). Pemandu di dunia sastra. Kanisius.

Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: The contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006

Kawulusan, H. E. (1998). Bahasa politik dalam bahasa Indonesia. Makalah disajikan dalam Kongres Bahasa Indonesia VII. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Kridalaksana, H. (1993). Linguistic Dictionary. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Inquiry, E. G. N. (1985). Sage Publication Inc. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi.

McOuat, G. R. (1996). Species, rules and meaning: the politics of language and the ends of definitions in 19th century natural history. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 27(4), 473-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(95)00060-7

Müller, M. (2008). Reconsidering the concept of discourse for the field of critical geopolitics: Towards discourse as language and practice. Political geography, 27(3), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.12.003

Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global language” in China: An investigation into learners’ and teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.011

Pradopo, R. D. (2004). Stilistika. Makalahdalam.

Putrayasa, I. B. (2017a). The semantic study of languages politics. International journal of linguistics, literature and culture, 3(2), 7-13.

Putrayasa, I.B. (2015). Polisemi dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Proceeding International Conference Linguistic Scientific Meeting. Bandung, 28 May 2015.

Putrayasa, I.B. (2017b). Analysis of Students’ Misconceptions: Understanding: the Meaning of Denotation and Connotation. The Proceeding of the 2nd Asian Education Symposium (AES 2017), pp. 473-477.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge university press.

Sibarani, R. (1992). Hakikat Bahasa. Penerbit PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.

Sriwimon, L., & Zilli, P. J. (2017). Applying Critical Discourse Analysis as a conceptual framework for investigating gender stereotypes in political media discourse. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.04.004

Sumarno, A. P. (1989). Dimensi-dimensi komunikasi Politik. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Turner, J. (2004). Language as academic purpose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00054-7

Valentine, G., & Skelton, T. (2007). The right to be heard: Citizenship and language. Political Geography, 26(2), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.09.003

Zupnik, Y. J. (1994). A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 21(4), 339-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8



How to Cite

Putrayasa, I. B. (2021). Political language variation: stylistic based study. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v5n1.45



Research Articles