Language Analysis: Language as a Political Tool

Without language, politics is unthinkable – it is the be-all and end-all of creating and communicating political realities. “Power relations manifest in political speeches and texts. They determine who holds interpretive authority in discourse and which positions are deemed legitimate,” writes Germanist and political linguistics expert Heiko Girnth [1]. Top politicians are particularly skilled at strategically using their language to bolster their positions, create certain sentiment among voters, and distinguish themselves from competing parties and actors.

Linguistic analyses often delve deeply into how politicians use language. They help identify patterns, provide insights into ideologies and values, and shed light on the relationship between politicians and voters as well as the societal climate of a country or region. At Lingoda, we aim to explore how today’s most prominent political figures in Germany and the United States communicate, identifying key rhetorical strategies that shape public discourse and influence political outcomes. 

In this analysis, Lingoda’s language experts examined the differences in word choice and content in the speeches of top German politicians. The analysis include parliamentary (German Bundestag and Bavarian Landtag for Söder) speeches and party convention speeches from Friedrich Merz (CDU), Markus Söder (CSU), Robert Habeck (Greens), Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), Olaf Scholz (SPD), and Alice Weidel (AfD).

Additionally, the analysis looks at the speeches of this year’s U.S. presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as well as their running mates Tim Walz and J.D. Vance [2].

For the analysis, the speeches of the examined politicians were each rated on a scale from one to ten points in the categories of rhetoric, comprehensibility, linguistic accuracy, empathy, willingness to compromise, sentiment, aggressiveness, and gender-sensitive language in comparison to each other. For the German politicians, both parliamentary and party convention speeches were analyzed, whereas for the U.S. politicians, we examined their nomination speeches at the Republican and Democratic party conventions.

The most well-known rhetorical device is the rhetorical question, used to emphasize a position. For example, in his speech at the Bavarian state parliament on June 13, 2024, Markus Söder (CSU) uses rhetorical questions to highlight his party’s ongoing efforts to promote Bavaria:

“But our domestic global players like Siemens, BMW, MAN, Audi, and MTU continue to invest heavily in Bavaria. This isn’t because we throw money at them—we can’t and won’t do that—but because the conditions and ecosystem for technology, research, and modernity are good here. Is that all? – No, we’re not resting on our laurels.”

Christian Lindner stands out alongside Olaf Scholz and Robert Habeck, scoring particularly high in the category of “Comprehensibility” with nine out of ten points. Lindner can explain complex matters in clear, accessible sentences that resonate across different educational backgrounds. For example, in his speech on December 14, 2023, he states:

“Financial crime is a fundamental threat. It costs the German state not only billions of euros annually but also undermines trust in the integrity of our economy and the stability of our society. The honest entrepreneur and the law-abiding citizen must not be the ones who suffer because criminals find it too easy to operate here. That’s why we’re now undertaking a fundamental restructuring of our fight against illicit financial flows and money laundering. We are consolidating previously fragmented responsibilities into a powerful new agency, the Federal Office for Combating Financial Crime.”

The speeches are generally well-structured and formulated, as illustrated by this quote from Sahra Wagenknecht on June 13, 2024:

“We are clear: Anyone who comes here and commits acts of violence forfeits their right to stay, and anyone without protection status cannot remain in the country.”

Sometimes, veering away from precisely structured sentences can serve a significant purpose. For instance, Markus Söder frequently uses colloquial expressions, as seen in his state parliament speech on July 18, 2024:

“After the rainy weeks behind us, we’re looking forward to good weather, summer, sunshine, vacation, school holidays, enjoying ourselves, exercising, relaxing, catching our breath, and just switching off from some of the odd speeches we’ve had to hear here, ladies and gentlemen.”

The informal sentiment makes this speech more accessible to the audience, which can be a deliberate choice in a political context. This shows that departing from standard language can also be an effective stylistic device.

Robert Habeck stands out with his high level of empathy, scoring eight out of ten points in his parliamentary speeches. In his speech on May 15, 2024, he said:

“The Slovakian Prime Minister, Robert Fico, has just been shot. I mention this because we know that actions follow words, and these actions usually have a mental preparation. Those of us who consider ourselves part of the democratic spectrum should, I think, weigh our words carefully. From here: Robert Fico, get well soon!”

Friedrich Merz, in contrast, receives only three points for empathy. He uses few expressions of sympathy and focuses on strategic measures and solutions instead, without forming an emotional connection with those affected. This is evident in the following quote from his speech on June 26, 2024:

“Against this threat to freedom, against this destruction of peace, even in the part of the world where we have had the great fortune to live, we Europeans must defend ourselves with all available means – political, of course diplomatic, but ultimately, where necessary, also with military deterrence and defense. Let me make this clear: The EU and NATO must make the right decisions in the coming days and weeks to ensure that we in Europe, the part of the world we call ‘the West,’ and ultimately in Germany, can continue to live in freedom and peace.”

• Habeck emphasizes the dangers to democracy that arise from actions like the attack on Robert Fico; however, by directly addressing Fico in his speech, he simultaneously expresses personal empathy
• Merz, on the other hand, refrains from referring to human destinies in his quote; instead, he remains on a more abstract level with his general and somewhat clichéd formulations, emphasizing the relevance of political and military measures

Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Robert Habeck (Greens) demonstrate the highest openness to compromise, each scoring eight points. For example, Scholz said the following about international trade policy:

“We have ensured that the trains don’t just collide, but that the European Union and China are now talking about a common path regarding car tariffs.”

Friedrich Merz and Alice Weidel show little willingness to compromise in their speeches. Weidel’s speech on January 31, 2024, illustrates her critical stance towards the coalition:

“The repair of the repair of a botched and bloated budget draft is a testament to your arrogance and incompetence. You talk about saving, but you place the burdens solely on the citizens. Business sentiment is at an all-time low. The coalition is the greatest risk to Germany’s economy.”

The expression of compromise differs naturally between governing and opposition politicians. While governing politicians must present themselves as state-supporting and open to compromise, opposition politicians are tasked with criticizing the government.

Olaf Scholz and Robert Habeck focus the most on creating an optimistic sentiment. Scholz frequently uses positive phrases such as “That’s why I’m pleased with what we’ve accomplished recently.“ As a governing politician, he often highlights past successes in his speeches. This is particularly evident in the following quote from June 26, 2024:

“That’s Germany. We are strong because we stand together. This is the important message that comes from this tragedy. In acute emergencies like this, the federal government is always on hand with all its resources. In the past few days, it has once again shown: Our country works.”

Friedrich Merz, in contrast, takes on the classic role of an opposition politician, often being critical and accusatory in his speeches. Therefore, he generates a more negative sentiment. For instance, in his speech on the same day, he said the following:

“Just look at the few countries in the world where Western lifestyles still prevail today, and you’ll see how important it is for us to defend these lifestyles against the aspirations of others who want to destroy them.”

He scores six points in this category, similar to Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Weidel, both of whom also portray a predominantly negative view of the current state of Germany in their speeches.

Alice Weidel and Friedrich Merz frequently use language that can be interpreted as aggressive. In contrast, Olaf Scholz and Christian Lindner are notably less confrontational in their speeches. A very clear example of aggressive language can be found in Sahra Wagenknecht’s Bundestag speech from June 26, 2024. She opens her speech with the following words:

“Mr. Chancellor, your understanding of democracy is truly remarkable. The voters have delivered you and the traffic light coalition a resounding defeat, yet you continue as if nothing has happened.”

With this choice of words in her introduction, Wagenknecht immediately positions herself as confrontational and makes it clear that she is defending her position assertively.

Robert Habeck is the only politician we analyzed who consistently makes an effort to use gender-sensitive language in his Bundestag speeches, earning him eight points in this category. Markus Söder (CSU) scores six out of ten points, as his speeches occasionally include inclusive phrasing. This is partly because Söder frequently uses expressions like “citizens” (“Bürgerinnen und Bürger”). It is well-known that both the CSU and CDU firmly oppose widespread gender-neutral language, particularly in the context of education [2].

Alice Weidel (AfD), in contrast, completely avoids the use of gender-sensitive language in her speeches. She consistently uses the generic masculine, as in: “The German state can no longer fulfill its duty to protect its citizens and their rights.” (from her speech from June 06, 2024)

• In terms of rhetoric, Friedrich Merz, Olaf Scholz, Robert Habeck, and Alice Weidel show differences between their Bundestag and party convention speeches
• Merz, Scholz, and Weidel perform slightly better rhetorically in their party convention speeches, while Habeck takes a stronger stance in this context
• In the analyzed party convention speech, Habeck uses much more figurative language, whereas his Bundestag speeches tend to adopt a more factual sentiment
• Lindner, however, consistently uses rhetorical devices like rhetorical questions or irony across both settings

• Merz, Scholz, Lindner, Habeck, and Söder all score lower in the “Comprehensibility” category for their party convention speeches
• This could be because the consensus at a party convention is already high, so they may not feel the need to emphasize Comprehensibility as much

• Only Sahra Wagenknecht and Markus Söder show differences in their expressed empathy between Bundestag and party convention speeches
• This strongly suggests that the level of empathy conveyed by individual politicians in their speeches is authentic and not influenced by the setting

• How open politicians appear to be to compromise seems to depend heavily on the context
• Only Scholz and Lindner’s speeches show no difference between the two settings
• Merz and Weidel appear more willing to compromise within their party, while they adopt a tougher stance in their Bundestag speeches
• Lindner, Wagenknecht, and Söder, on the other hand, show more openness to finding common solutions in the Bundestag, while focusing more on the values and approaches of their own party during the party convention

• The ‘sentiment’ category shows clear differences between Bundestag and party convention speeches
• Except for Scholz and Lindner, speakers present themselves more positively in their party convention speeches than in Bundestag speeches
• One possible reason for this is that at party conventions, politicians aim to mobilize and motivate their base
• In the Bundestag, however, the more negative sentiment may stem from the fact that this is where conflicts with other parties are played out, and criticism of the opposition is emphasized

• In the aggressiveness category, all politicians except Robert Habeck show differences between their Bundestag and party convention speeches
• Christian Lindner and Sahra Wagenknecht, for instance, use sharper language in their party convention speeches than in the Bundestag, possibly to energize their base and demonstrate party unity
• Politicians like Olaf Scholz and Alice Weidel, who use harsher language in the Bundestag, often do so to directly attack their political opponents and clearly position themselves

• In this category, only Markus Söder and Alice Weidel show differences between the two settings
• Söder’s party convention speech contains more colloquial language, creating a more informal sentiment that helps him appear more approachable within his party

• The extent to which gender-sensitive language is used varies most frequently between Bundestag and party convention speeches in the analyzed content
• Only Robert Habeck, who consistently strives for gender-sensitive language, earns eight points in both settings
• The other politicians tend to use more gender-neutral language at their party conventions than in the Bundestag
• One explanation for this could be that they seek to foster a greater sense of inclusion when speaking directly to fellow party members

Donald Trump: “This will be the most important election in the history of our country.”

Kamala Harris: “We are not going back. We are not going back. We are not going back.”

• Presidential candidates and political rivals Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are evenly matched in their use of rhetorical techniques
• Both excel at emotional appeals and their ability to communicate with the audience
• Trump, in particular, stands out with his use of superlatives and repetition in his speeches
• Tim Walz and J.D. Vance perform slightly weaker than their respective presidential candidates
• Walz focuses on personal stories and shared values, while Vance uses anecdotes to emphasize patriotism, appealing to the emotions of his audience

Donald Trump: “They just, this beautiful crowd, they didn’t want to leave me. They knew I was in trouble. They didn’t want to leave me. And you can see that love written all over their faces. True.”

Kamala Harris: “Growing up, we moved a lot. I will always remember that big Mayflower truck, packed with all our belongings, ready to go — to Illinois, to Wisconsin, and wherever our parents’ jobs took us.”

• In the “Comprehensibility” category, Walz and Harris score the highest points. 
• Trump, however, receives significantly lower scores in this area, mainly due to his often unstructured communication style
• While his frequent repetitions are an effective rhetorical device, they often impede Comprehensibility
• Additionally, Trump tends to digress in his speeches

Donald Trump: “Our love and prayers are with them and always will be.”

Kamala Harris: “Stories of women miscarrying in a parking lot, developing sepsis, losing the ability to ever again have children, all because doctors are afraid they may go to jail for caring for their patients.”

• Empathy is crucial for voters, as many Americans, like Europeans, are currently grappling with rising living costs and severe political polarization
• Harris displays the greatest empathy in her speech, followed by Walz 
• Trump lags behind the two Democrats with five points, reflecting a less empathetic demeanor. Though he often tries to connect with the working class, his communication style frequently comes across as self-centered, and his expressions of sympathy tend to feel impersonal and formulaic

Donald Trump: “The Democrat party should immediately stop weaponizing the justice system.”

Kamala Harris: “In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man. But the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious.”

• Trump uses more aggressive language in his speech compared to Harris, frequently attacking political opponents and adopting a confrontational sentiment
• Vance is less aggressive, although he criticizes his opponents in a more moderate way
• Walz shows even lower levels of aggression, focusing more on his own policies
• Harris’ speech includes aggressive statements, particularly toward Trump, but overall, she uses a much more restrained language

Donald Trump: “If Democrats want to unify our country, they should drop these partisan witch hunts, which I’ve been going through for approximately eight years. And they should do that without delay and allow an election to proceed that is worthy of our people. We’re going to win it anyway.”

Kamala Harris: “Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades.”

• Harris and Walz come across as the most willing to compromise in their speeches, while Trump displays a clear inflexibility in this regard
• Trump presents his path as the only correct one, showing little room for negotiation
• His running mate Vance, though also focused on party loyalty, appears somewhat more open to compromise compared to Trump

Donald Trump: “Charged with Jocelyn’s heinous murder, two illegal aliens from Venezuela who came across our border, were in custody and were then released into the country by this horrible, horrible administration that we have right now.”

Kamala Harris: “Because the future is always worth fighting for. And that’s the fight we are in right now — a fight for America’s future.”

• Both Harris and Walz aim to create a positive atmosphere in their speeches
• The two Democrats take an optimistic outlook on the future of the U.S., while still acknowledging current challenges in the country. 
• In contrast, Trump’s speech is characterized by a more negative sentiment. While there is some optimism about the future in his words, he emphasizes the current state of the country, often describing it in a negative light.

Donald Trump: “And this great iron dome will be built entirely in the U.S.A. We’re going to build it in the U.S.A. And Wisconsin, Wisconsin, just like I gave you that massive ship contract, and you’re doing a very nice job, governor, right? Thank you, governor. And they’re doing a great job. In fact, I had a little design change and we gave them a tremendous for, essentially, what we used to call destroyers. These are now the most beautiful. They look like yachts.”

Kamala Harris: “This is one of the reasons I became a prosecutor: to protect people like Wanda, because I believe everyone has a right to safety, to dignity, and to justice.”

• Similar to their German counterparts, the linguistic accuracy of U.S. politicians is generally high
• Harris and Walz stand out with grammatically correct and well-structured sentences
• Trump, by contrast, scores the lowest in this category, frequently using incomplete sentences, known as ellipses, in his speeches

Donald Trump: “We will not have men playing in women’s sports. That will end immediately.”

Kamala Harris: “And, so, on behalf of the people, on behalf of every American, regardless of party, race, gender or the language your grandmother speaks.”

• Trump’s speech shows little use of gender-sensitive language, often speaking in dismissive terms about transgender individuals, particularly transgender athletes
• In contrast, Harris places significant emphasis on inclusivity, explicitly stating that her policies address all Americans, regardless of their gender