Linguistic Analysis

Written by Rebecca Muller and Margherita Cantamessa

 The problem of polarization lends itself to being analyzed through many different interpretations such as sociology, political science, or media studies. However, we have decided to analyze this concept through language itself, how it is structured, used and interpreted, as we think that it is sometimes improper use of language that supports and emphasizes polarization. In fact, in words, in speeches, even in the way of telling the facts, we can choose whether to build connections or impose boundaries that then feed stereotypes and create divisions. Language contributes to producing ideologies and power relations, thus making evident the political and social character of the linguistic choices themselves.

Linguistic analysis in this chapter will therefore be the tool that will help us to identify possible communication mechanisms that accentuate division rather than favor dialogue. We will see in the development of this chapter how this method of analysis can be functional in different contexts such as politics, mass media, and subcultures but will also help us to better reflect on the actual necessity of its existence.

Linguistic analysis refers to the process of identifying figures and characteristics of a text. It will deal with analyzing language in all its forms, semantic, pragmatic, social etc., not dwelling only on the grammatical aspect but questioning how words can acquire one meaning rather than another based on the context in which they are used and how they can structure the social relationships that are established around the dialogue itself. What we are committed to doing is to make explicit the mechanisms through which language conditions us in understanding the world and how this involves the adoption of more or less conscious ideas.

We can find the origins of this approach in twentieth-century thinkers of philosophy of language such as Frege and Wittgenstein.

The first indeed distinguishes, within language, two concepts: sense (Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung). Thanks to this division, Frege makes it clear that words are not simply and solely something that we associate with objects but are thought vehicles that in turn define and direct our way of understanding reality.[1] Meaning, therefore, is not limited to being the link between the word and the object but opens up the horizon to what is called a concept, the sense of our understanding. This opens the perspective to the misunderstanding generated by an expression that can be analyzed by attributing different meanings to it, thus causing a sort of communicative polarization.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, another thinker dedicated to the philosophy of language, transformed this paradigm. In the beginning, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he defines language as a logical structure that corresponds to the natural structure of the world, [2] and then shifts the focus towards the concrete use of it in The Philosophical Investigations.[3]

In fact, he argues that what defines the true meaning of a word is the use that is made of it in a given context. Through the concept of Sprachspiel (language game) and Lebensform (form of life) Wittgenstein can help us to better understand polarization: language loses its neutrality but becomes a constitutive part of cultural and social practices. This means that real conflicts can be created when these forms of life are not shared. We are not talking about language games but about linguistic games. In fact, according to Wittgenstein, each community develops its own linguistic games, each having its own rules and its own modes of interpretation. These rules are not always aligned and this would explain divisions that cannot be reduced simply to misunderstandings.

More recently, we find thinkers such as George Lakoff and Mark Johnson developing theories on language and communication.[4] They focus on some particular forms of communication such as metaphors, not seen simply as something that changes the aspect of communication, but as real conceptual structures that have an active role in the organization of our thinking and consequently of our understanding. This concept of metaphor is something that is embedded in our speech and is found in many aspects of society. In a later paragraph this will be elaborated on.

Applying linguistic analysis to polarization

In this section we apply linguistic analysis to the phenomenon of polarization. We understand polarization, therefore, as a phenomenon not only as a contrast of opinions, but also as something relevant from a linguistic point of view. It is therefore not simply a question of different ideas that two dialoguers may have, it is precisely a question of different ways in which they describe the world, semantic frameworks with which very different moral values are associated. In our applications we will use a step by step analysis, we will perform linguistic analysis on metaphors and slogans.

Before starting with the step-by-step path, it is important to reflect on the type of text that is going to be analyzed. Are we analyzing a word? A sentence? A broader discourse?

This step is relevant because language is a social practice, it can only be understood in its conditions of production and interpretation. As Lakoff suggests, words, metaphors, and slogans activate important cognitive frameworks in the reception of the message they contain. Whether or not images are used makes it easier to anchor and understand a certain type of text interpretation. You thus have to collect relevant meta-data.

Once you know what type of text you are dealing with and in what form it is accessible to the public (i.e. in pictures, slogans, politics or something else), you can proceed in your analysis by identifying keywords. These keywords will help you zoom in on what language is used. You can ask yourself questions like: What are the value terms? Which pronouns are used?  What sort of imperative is used? Answering these questions will help you understand if the sentence is demanding action or something else.

Once the keywords are identified,  you can analyse what implications are obtained by these words. What does it mean that these particular words are used? And then you can define what the polarizing factor is. Where does the sentence draw a comparison or contrast between two or more groups? Which groups are there and what is expected from them? Last but not least, you can formulate counterstrategies. This exercise helps you in rephrasing the sentence whilst still retaining its meaning. Below you will find the steps explained again in an easy-to-follow structure.

Polarization in  metaphor

Written by Rebecca Muller

The method of linguistic analysis is applicable in multiple ways; however, we are for now focusing on the concept of metaphors and how polarization can thrive on metaphors.  At the beginning of their book Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson focus on the metaphors surrounding arguments and conclude that “argument is war.”[4] This metaphor is the echo of our everyday use of language. The way we describe an argument as one to win or defend contributes to this view of an argument as a war. When one is arguing with another, we call them opponents; they have structured arguments that can attack the other’s and defend their own point. This turns argumentation into a conflict, where there are winners and losers. It is not so much about telling someone your point of view as attacking the other’s position and making sure you win. The whole point of getting information across or spreading different views has been lost to the conflict we impose on argumentation. Argumentation becomes a battle where the main goal is to win and not to understand the other.

In this line of thinking, it seems almost obvious why the ‘other’ is the enemy, especially when we consider polarization. Polarization begins with language, especially the metaphors we use, and how these metaphors are understood throughout society. Metaphors structure how we view the world, as can be seen in Metaphors We Live By; things like “feeling down” and “feeling up” have a significant influence on how we view other aspects of the world.[5] Having control is always “over” something, and the thing controlled is “under” control. While this might seem innocent when we talk about having a dog under control, this becomes problematic when we say we have a situation under control when this situation involves immigration, patriarchal views, or racism. The language we use seems small, but the word “up” or “down” already implies that one is better than the other. In a polarized society, these metaphors are thus something we may even unconsciously use. As Lakoff and Johnson show, the language we use within metaphors already contains value judgments.

Exercise: The “up,” “down,” “over,” and “under”

As we have seen, words like “up” and “down” carry significant meaning in a metaphor. According to Lakoff and Johnson there is an implication in these words. “Up” is positive and “down” is negative.

• Find an example of a metaphor where this is reverted, either for the words “up” and “down” or “over” and “under.” The exercise here is to see if there are exemptions to this rule. This can be in speech, but also in songs or poetry.

For Example: the song “Down” by Jay Sean and Lil Wayne.

• The phrase “baby are you down,” is a metaphor because you do not have to be “down somewhere” to be “down.” To be “down” does not seem to be negative.

There are a lot of ”themes” a metaphor can have. As we have seen in the section before, one of them is war, in the metaphor “argument is war.” In the following section, we will focus on the metaphors using war, fighting and building themes. The step-by-step linguistic analysis will be applied and thereby show how these metaphors can be analyzed.

The War Metaphor

The first type of metaphor to focus on is the war family of metaphors, briefly touched upon already. This concept of war is not only seen in “argument is war” but also in phrases used in politics. Notice how we ”fight” for freedom, or consider a slogan saying, “fight for your rights.” We also need to “battle corruption.” As has been discussed, this type of metaphor goes hand in hand with a worldview where there are enemies and losers, good guys and bad guys; overall, there are two sides. The action one has to partake in is already influenced by this notion of violence in the choosing of terms like “fight” or “battle.”  This polarized view is thus integrated into our everyday use of language. Winning an argument can blind us, we do not value the other, we only care about winning the argument and getting our point across. The fight for freedom is against some other entity; it is not a communal thing we can do together but it is the one against the other. There is an implication that the ones who do the fighting are the good guys, and those who are fought against are bad.

The metaphor “fight for your rights” was not always a metaphor, and is still not always only used as metaphor. There are still wars where people are literally fighting for their freedom. However, this phrase is also used as a metaphor for example in Dutch election campaigns. Here we already see a polarizing usage of the metaphor when a politician like Geert Wilders would say it. He would mean to say that “the Dutch” must fight for their rights by not accepting refugees into the country. There is a presupposed form of threat in this statement. Instead of empowering people to stand up for their rights, it feels more aggressive. Below you will see the step-by-step linguistic analysis to analyze this metaphor more closely.

The Building Metaphor

The building theme of metaphors is not something that sounds very concerning. We can build foundations or build a friendship. The metaphor evokes stability, planning and progress. When we say we “build a foundation” for something we tend to imply that this is a good foundation. Something we can build on, and something that is strong. This strong, supporting foundation seems not at all polarizing, especially in comparison to the war metaphor we have just seen. We deliberately build something, often with others. This implies that building is a communal thing, something where people come together and work in a team. It would be beneficial to go back to the basics of the metaphor, what does it mean to build? A house is often not built by just one man, this man has the help of his carpenter, friends, family or others. Even if this man were to build everything himself, he would need others to supply him with the tools and materials needed. A house has a blueprint, and a planning of when everything will be placed.

Even seemingly neutral metaphors like build or foundation can carry hidden ideological assumptions. One can ask oneself, who builds, what counts as a “solid” base, and which voices or materials are included in that structure? In addition, this metaphor of building can also impose boundaries, these friend groups include or exclude people, the foundations we build, such as a foundation in language, can be problematic, which will result in a bad foundation. There is thus a hierarchy in building, someone has authority to say how it gets built and where. Now this metaphor does not provoke people to commit to physical violence and fight for this building. Nevertheless, this metaphor does evoke polarization is a more subtle way. Who decides the friendship is now built, and who can be a part of that friendship?  Not to mention the most obvious polarizing building metaphor, “let’s build a wall.” Even though Trump might not have meant this as a metaphor, because he truly wants to build a wall, we can also build metaphorical walls. Let us take a closer look at this metaphor with the step-by-step analysis.

In order to examine polarization within metaphors, it is fruitful to draw a word cloud around a metaphor. As can be seen below, I made a word cloud using AI. I have asked it to use a cold colour and words it thought would fit the metaphor “to build a friendship.” As you can see, the AI tool is not the best at making images. The blue house is the metaphor “to build a friendship,” the pink flower is made by me on a drawing app on my iPad, this word cloud altered the metaphor to “to grow a friendship.” This is a fun exercise, which you can also do along with the previous two. This word cloud can be as creative as you want, and this use of creativity can evoke new insights into what this metaphor entails, so instead of using AI you could use pen and paper and draw it for yourself both times, but I was curious what an AI would come up with. Instead of compassion, I came up with love, instead of support, I came up with nurturing and so forth.

 Polarization in Advertizing

Written by Margherita Cantamessa

I chose to apply the method of linguistic analysis to analyze the problem of polarization in advertising.

The language of the media and advertising contributes to creating moral and identity divisions. Indeed, many advertisements cannot be defined simply as tools for selling products but are also vehicles of values and ways of interpreting reality. Advertising often intrinsically associates certain purchasing choices with the buyer’s personal characteristics and this obviously charges a purely commercial choice with moral values. This also implies that if you make a purchase of a certain thing, you embrace the values that the promoting advertising campaign has associated with this particular item.

Nike’s case

I analyse an emblematic advertising case in this sense: the Nike campaign with Colin Kaepernick. Below is the image of the campaign so that you have a clear idea of the commercial I am referring to.

This ad is linked to Nike’s “Just do It” campaign, which ran in 2018. For this advertisement, Nike used the face of the well-known American football player Colin Kaepernick.

Colin Kaepernick played as a quarterback and in 2016 he was the promoter of a protest. In fact, during the American anthem sung before each game, he refused to stand up and decided, on the contrary, to kneel, a sign of protest against the violence that the police exercises against the Afro-American minority in America. This gesture of his was a very direct statement, a strong stance that, in addition to making him a much-discussed character, was the reason for his exclusion from the NFL (National Football League).

Nike chose his face because they decided to fight the same battle as him, devising a campaign that gave voice to the protest against racism. In fact, Colin had become a symbolic figure in the protest, as well as a figure much criticized by Donald Trump. We might wonder, why this risky choice on Nike’s part? Certainly, the US multinational was very clear about the risks related to the choice to advertise products through a campaign of this type and the data show us how risky but commercially successful it was in the end, recording a 31% increase in sales in the days following the campaign. [6]

Critical perspective

It is also important to acknowledge the critical debate that surrounded Nike’s campaign. Several commentators argued that the slogan represents a case of social justice commercialization – the strategic appropriation of moral and political uses for branding purposes. Indeed, contemporary brand activism often transforms dissent into style, turning political commitment into a marketable aesthetic.

At the same time, however, the campaign’s intentional ambiguity plays a crucial rhetorical role. The image of Kaepernick in combination with the context clearly refers to racial justice, while the text itself remains open enough to be interpreted in multiple ways. This universalization allows the slogan to apply both to social causes and to personal goals, such as self-improvement or athletic success. In this sense, ambiguity functions as a strategic softening device: it broadens identification, making the message emotionally inclusive even if politically diluted.

The ad’s strength lies precisely in this tension between ethical message and commercial intent, between specific political stance and universal motivation. Recognizing this duality allows linguistic analysis to grasp not only the polarizing effects of the language used but also its complex role in balancing activism, branding and moral universality.

Let us take this as an emblematic case in the study of the problem of polarization as it is a symbolic and stylistic choice that has led to the formation of moral/political alignments.

The goal here is to demonstrate how linguistic analysis can help us understand where this polarization arises and how it can be a tool for mitigating it.

Why polarization?

To better understand how polarization arises in this case, I proceed by defining the concept of linguistic framing by Lakoff.[7] By this we mean the way in which some words create specific cognitive frames even if these words are used in a different context.

Words and metaphors therefore activate cognitive frameworks that orient thought.  In addition, Fairclough[8] explains how the words we use very often show the values we welcome and those we exclude. Therefore, choosing to use some words instead of alternatives is not a neutral choice but a social practice.

Obviously, incompatible visions of the world are born from different frames and this is precisely the terrain on which language acts. Language can therefore have a double task: to create a greater gap between these two frames or instead to create a communication bridge between these two. Analyzing through linguistic analysis therefore means finding the precise place of this rupture and trying to heal it. Linguistic analysis allows us to see how a seemingly neutral sentence such as “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” can generate opposite meanings.

The analysis

Define the analyzed language

The slogan chosen — “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” — quickly divided public opinion: on the one hand, those who saw the message as a hymn to courage and social justice; on the other, those who interpreted it as an anti-patriotic and divisive gesture. The text used in this slogan is a phrase made by two short sentences with simple words.

Collect meta-data

The image that accompanies this text is Colin Kaepernick’s face, a face obviously full of meaning (political in this case) and the colors in the photo are only black and white.

Identify key-words 

Now we can proceed by trying to highlight what the keywords of this message are. To do this, we look for the words most loaded with meaning, bearers of values. We can see how believe, something, sacrificing, everything are words that convey a strong moral meaning but at the same time due to their indeterminacy allow several different ways of interpretation. In this case, this indeterminacy is addressed to the political sphere due to the presence of Colin Kaepernick’s face. “Believe in something” becomes an obvious reference to the protest against racial injustice and is no longer just a generic invitation. Here we can see language as an index of positioning on a moral scale: if you accept Kaepernick’s message it is because you recognize yourself in his ideal, those who do not share the ideal instead, also reject the slogan.

Semantic analysis and implications

Let’s proceed with the semantic analysis of this short text. It is a text consisting of two short sentences, with the use of verbs in the imperative. The tone used is therefore rather authoritarian and aphoristic, it seems to convey something universally true. Also between the two sentences is a period, which brings with it a sense of resolve and self-sacrifice. Furthermore, there is no subject of the sentence, there is no talk of “I” or “you”, so the underlying subject is universal and therefore the concept calls each of us to take a stance in a short time. The verbs used are also ”believe” and ”sacrifice,” verbs that have a moral role that cannot be underestimated and that also recall something heroic in a certain sense. This concept, associated with Colin Kaepernick, takes on an even more precise meaning. It is evident that the object to which the verb ”believe” refers to is the fight against racism, and ”sacrifice” in this case takes the form of the social but, above all, professional loss of his role as a football player due to sacrificing himself for this cause. Semantically speaking, the choice of a verb like believe is not accidental. Believe is a verb that requires authenticity and full support of what is considered right. Here arises the contrast between those who believe and therefore take an active and conscious part, sometimes even in a courageous way, and those who do not believe, those who accept and are satisfied.

Define polarization

At this point it is evident where the polarization is. We can schematize this polarization as follows:

Formulate counterstrategies

Now, the last part of this process is constituted by the research of counterstrategies that could solve this problem. To reach this goal we will make use also of some philosophical experiments. Linguistic analysis can guide us toward a more inclusive communication design.
The goal is not to neutralize the message, but to maintain its ethical and emotional power while avoiding the binary opposition between “believers” and “non-believers.”

Here below, some different counterstrategies.

1. REFRAMING THE SLOGAN

The first counterstrategy that comes to mind is to reframe the slogan. As previously said, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” uses a very strong tone, so in reframing we must try to maintain the emotional strength of the message, not using the concept of “individual sacrifice” but more the collective participation in something right. Here, I propose an experiment.

2. CONTEXTUALIZING THE CAUSE

Another counterstrategy I propose is to clean the message of any kind of ambiguity by reintroducing a clear explanation of the context from which this advertisement develops.

This can be done by introducing a subtitle that can somehow define the context in which to use the imperative of the title, without it being universalized to the extreme.

Another experiment that can be done in this case is the following.

And now here is my proposal for an alternative to the advertisement that we have analysed. The following visual and linguistic choices aim to preserve the persuasive strength of Nike’s message while transforming its moral tone from divisive to inclusive.

1. The visual composition

The image represents a very diverse group of people (in this case unknown) belonging to completely different groups in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. This expresses the concept of collective representation instead of the ideal of the individual hero. The text changes from “I Believe” to “We stand together”, avoiding an excessive alignment between those for and against the message.

2. The colour palette

I chose to use a neutral color palette. As we have seen, the choice of using black and white as the only colors is representative of the type of message you want to share: a divisive message, which creates opposing sides. The beige color and all its shades make the context of the discourse invite calm and reflection and sharing instead of confrontation.

3. Tone of the slogan

Using “stand together for what matters” guarantees the maintenance of the same type of ethical message that Nike wants to leave, but by replacing the ”imperative” with a sort of strong invitation, advertising is no longer a command but an invitation to participate in something shared.

4. Ethical context

The QR code at the bottom right links this advertisement to the section of the Nike website dedicated to all activities that aim at inclusion, sustainability, and shared responsibility. This implies that we are defining a precise context within which to “stand.” It also demonstrates how the company is not based solely on motivational phrases and promises but on concrete facts. Furthermore, it directly addresses the critique of commercializing social justice by grounding language in practice.

7. Call to reflection, not division

The small caption — “Learn more about Nike’s commitment to equality” — transforms the ad’s tone from assertive to reflective. This rhetorical shift changes the viewer’s role: from passive consumer or opponent to active participant in dialogue. It embodies the principle of linguistic depolarization: stimulating engagement without moral pressure.

The new advertisement

Through this Canva redesign, the advertisement transforms the language of individual heroism into one of collective participation. The universal moral appeal (“believe in something”) is reframed through inclusive pronouns and visual plurality. In this way, linguistic analysis not only diagnoses polarization but actively contributes to its resolution through ethical communication design.

Ultimately, the redesigned advertisement embodies a form of communicative ethics: it keeps the emotional and moral strength of Nike’s brand language while reframing it through inclusivity and shared meaning. By replacing confrontation with dialogue and individualism with community, linguistic analysis becomes not only a method of interpretation but also a tool of ethical design capable of mitigating polarization.

[5] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

[6] Edison Trends.

[7] Lakoff, G., Don’t think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green, 2004.

[8] Fairclough, N., Language and Power, Longman, 1989.