Historical context and political speech: Analysis of the declarations following the announcement of the results of the presidential elections in Lithuania and France (1993–2009)

The linguistic personal characteristics of the presidential candidates have not been analyzed in France or in Lithuania. This article discusses the relationship between the election context, the content of the phrases, and the personal political vocabulary. The computer software Tropes and Lexico gave us such an opportunity thanks to their technical performance regarding research and comparison of personal vocabulary. Thus, quantitative lexicometric data have distinguished the statements of Sarkozy in France and Adamkus in Lithuania. Thanks to these programs, we have been able to distinguish the central with peripheral semantic universes. French speakers speak more about historical symbols, for example, republican values: freedom, fraternity, equality, solidarity, etc. Lithuanian speakers, on the other hand, make more reference to their political predecessors, which symbolize the Lithuanian state, and to the news of the moment, especially in the case of defeated candidates. The second observation concerns the Lithuanian list which is quite long and the vocabulary used is quite varied. This is related first of all to the higher number of speakers – eight in Lithuania and five in France. Then, it is also the peculiarity of the genre of Lithuanian Interviews where the language is more spontaneous than in the French Declarations. Another conclusion is that Lithuanian policies opt less for the language of wood than French politicians. However, the policies of both countries choose a standard language. In any case, the elected presidents and the defeated candidates of both countries understand the importance of this republican ritual for the legitimization of their status. Candidates are realizing the need to materialize through language the aspirations of their voters who voted for without hurting however who voted against. That is why when they talk about big themes, for example, racism, tolerance, pacifism, equality between women and men, it is difficult to choose the exact words, to emit ideas nuanced enough to hurt no one.

The linguistic personal characteristics of the presidential candidates have not been analyzed in France or in Lithuania. This article discusses the relationship between the election context, the content of the phrases, and the personal political vocabulary. The computer software Tropes and Lexico gave us such an opportunity thanks to their technical performance regarding research and comparison of personal vocabulary. Thus, quantitative lexicometric data have distinguished the statements of Sarkozy in France and Adamkus in Lithuania. Thanks to these programs, we have been able to distinguish the central with peripheral semantic universes. French speakers speak more about historical symbols, for example, republican values: freedom, fraternity, equality, solidarity, etc. Lithuanian speakers, on the other hand, make more reference to their political predecessors, which symbolize the Lithuanian state, and to the news of the moment, especially in the case of defeated candidates. The second observation concerns the Lithuanian list which is quite long and the vocabulary used is quite varied. This is related first of all to the higher number of speakers – eight in Lithuania and five in France. Then, it is also the peculiarity of the genre of Lithuanian Interviews where the language is more spontaneous than in the French Declarations. Another conclusion is that Lithuanian policies opt less for the language of wood than French politicians. However, the policies of both countries choose a standard language. In any case, the elected presidents and the defeated candidates of both countries understand the importance of this republican ritual for the legitimization of their status. Candidates are realizing the need to materialize through language the aspirations of their voters who voted for without hurting however who voted against. That is why when they talk about big themes, for example, racism, tolerance, pacifism, equality between women and men, it is difficult to choose the exact words, to emit ideas nuanced enough to hurt no one.