The historical, linguistic, and social stigma of leadership titles
The historical, linguistic, and social stigma of leadership titles
Zein Kalaj
Words are not immune to change. Semantic change is an evolutionary process in which a word loses its original meaning and acquires a new meaning in its modern usage. This paper seeks to investigate how and why leadership titles undergo such a change.
The titles of leaders are more than just ways of labeling those who have power and authority; they are also methods of identification and association. Likewise, authority figures can be often identified with a single term or phrase. Known as antonomasia, this occurs when a title or epithet is used in lieu of a person’s real name. Using the examples of Führer and Czar, this article examines, not only how these titles came to symbolize the leaders that they referred to, but, also, how these titles have developed negative and pejorative connotations.
In order to explain why Führer and Czar have gone from epithets of power and glory to labels of stigma and disgrace, this paper refers to previous literature for the purpose of gaining insight into what may have caused Führer and Czar to undergo a semantic shift. Moreover, the etymologies of Führer and Czar, as well as the history of the people to whom these words refer, are studied in order to better understand why these leadership titles are viewed in a negative light in modern times. The findings of this paper reveal that titles that were once associated with power are now used in weaker ways. While Führer and Czar maintain their original meaning in their respective languages, as loanwords in English, they have been reduced to sources of irony.
Keywords: Semantic change, Antonomasia, Führer, Czar
4 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- April 2022 (20)
- April 2021 (14)
- April 2020 (22)
- April 2019 (15)
- April 2018 (15)
- April 2017 (25)
- April 2016 (22)
- April 2015 (30)
- April 2014 (19)
- April 2013 (23)
- April 2012 (15)
- April 2011 (19)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Language and Societies 
Was there a substantial difference between the semantic views of Czar vs. the common alternate spelling “Tsar”?
I’m also curious if you examined the connotations surrounding other titles: Chief, King, Queen, Supreme Leader; and whether your focus was primarily on title in language of origin or English (or both).
Hi Michael,
There was no difference between the semantic views of “Czar” and “Tsar”. They are merely different spellings for the same meaning. While “Czar” is closer in spelling to “Caesar”, from which “Czar” is derived, the “Ts” in “Tsar” is an attempt to replicate the Russian sound [ц] in English.
During my research I did discover that negative connotations surround the title “Il Duce”. Due to the stigma associated with Benito Mussolini, Italians tend to use the English loanword “leader” as opposed to “duce”. Likewise, in German, “leiter” is preferred over “führer”.
Thanks for your questions,
Zein
The connotations are only connotations ie ideas suggested by the word which are different to the lexical definition of the word
because we associate those words with a particular person. I only know of one Fuhrer, so my understanding of that word is about that one person. Csar is different, because I know that there were lots of them. Same with Pharaoh. There were lots of Pharaohs but am I correct in thinking that they were all buried in pyramids? This is cultural connotation.
Csar has come to mean someone in power. It’s in common use in The Whitehouse now http://blog.heritage.org/?p=14641
Sounds like an interesting paper.
Perhaps it is not entirely surprising that a title once used to identify a tyrant later comes to be viewed in a negative light. The converse might also be true. A title used in a neutral way to identify a leader may take on a more positive connotation through association with a highly respected leader.
Actions perhaps speak louder than words.