{"id":5355,"date":"2017-03-30T16:12:46","date_gmt":"2017-03-30T15:12:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ounews.co\/?p=5355"},"modified":"2017-03-30T16:12:46","modified_gmt":"2017-03-30T15:12:46","slug":"linguists-guide-theresa-may-article-50-letter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/arts-social-sciences\/society-politics\/linguists-guide-theresa-may-article-50-letter\/","title":{"rendered":"A linguist&#8217;s guide to the Theresa May Article 50 letter"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><\/h1>\n<p>With the delivery of Theresa May\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/604079\/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf\">letter<\/a> to Donald Tusk, the European Council president, the UK gave official notification of its intention to leave the EU. The letter not only signalled the legal start of the Brexit process, but also gave the British prime minister the chance to frame the tone of the negotiations. The letter was her opportunity to communicate a vision for how she would like to see Brexit talks proceed. <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.edu.au\/content\/75436\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic\" alt=\"The Conversation\" width=\"1\" height=\"1\" \/><\/p>\n<p>The language used to discuss Brexit over the past nine months has often been rancorous and divisive, and has generated a whole new vocabulary of Brexiteers and Remoaners. The rhetoric in the letter is far more measured, though not without a certain steeliness \u2013 and the occasional veiled threat.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cContinuity\u201d and \u201ccertainty\u201d are two recurring themes in the letter. Both words are restated several times. In this respect, one of the letter\u2019s principal aims seems to be reassurance, especially around economic issues. What\u2019s being triggered, the letter would like to suggest, is an orderly and controlled process, and certainly not an uncoordinated scramble.<\/p>\n<h2>Setting the tone<\/h2>\n<p>The tone is polite but forceful, indicating that May intends to engage fully with the negotiations while also underlining her authority as the spokesperson for the citizens of the UK. The reference to restoring \u201cnational self-determination\u201d in the opening paragraph reads like a direct, if rather formal, echo of the \u201ctake back control\u201d refrain which was so much a part of the referendum debate.<\/p>\n<p>A letter of this sort is always addressed to multiple audiences at the same time. Although ostensibly written to Tusk, the prime minister is aware that it will be read \u2013 and read into \u2013 by many other interested parties. Part of her job is to find a balance that speaks to all of them.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, the choice of words to address European citizens is purposefully inclusive. May talks of \u201cfellow Europeans\u201d, \u201cfriends across the continent\u201d, and \u201cour\u201d continent. But when the letter talks of the importance of the process working to ensure the rights and interests of \u201call our citizens\u201d, it implicitly acknowledges the divisions that will likely come into play for EU nationals living in the UK, and UK nationals living on the continent.<\/p>\n<h2>Divided Kingdom<\/h2>\n<p>The letter also indirectly references the troubled relationship between the nations of the UK. The prime minister makes a point of stressing that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be negotiating as \u201cone United Kingdom\u201d \u2013 which also serves to remind anyone reading the letter that there is considerable disagreement on the UK\u2019s collective negotiating position, given that the devolved nations have <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/scotland-heads-towards-a-second-independence-referendum-74491\">different priorities<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>May does however offer the possibility of further consolations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by implying that Brexit could lead to greater devolution:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<figure class=\"align-center \"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.theconversation.com\/files\/163193\/width754\/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png\" alt=\"\" \/><figcaption><span class=\"caption\">Dear Donald, where do I begin?<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"attribution\"><a class=\"source\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/604079\/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf\">Gov.uk<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Again, the aim here seems to be to try and placate and reassure as many people at the same time as possible. And even as May is addressing an audience at home, she\u2019s also talking to a global one.<\/p>\n<p>Another phrase repeated throughout the letter is the \u201cspecial partnership\u201d. May apparently envisages between the UK and the EU \u2013 clearly echoing the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d between the UK and the US, while at the same time being noticeably different. Perhaps May is trying to signal that the UK does in fact have allies beyond the EU, and that it could perhaps act as a bridge across the Atlantic.<\/p>\n<h2>The veiled threat<\/h2>\n<p>The statement May delivered to the House of Commons while this letter was being delivered was an interesting contrast. Throughout that speech she repeatedly used the word \u201ctogether\u201d to address the audience, trying to portray the process as being inclusive for all those living in the UK. As a BBC\u2019s political journalist tweeted, this was a \u201cConciliatory tone towards EU. Theresa the Dealmaker\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>But while the language of the letter certainly strikes a conciliatory tone at times, it still has a forceful edge. Amid all the talk of stability, continuity and joint values are several warnings about security. May reminds Tusk that \u201cEurope\u2019s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War\u201d and stresses her desire to make sure Europe remains safe.<\/p>\n<p>Several of these references to security concerns are made alongside discussion of the trade deal negotiations ahead. In repeatedly pairing the UK\u2019s area of strength (security) with its area of <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/brexit-britain-and-trade-this-is-where-it-gets-tricky-74481\">potential weakness<\/a> (the trade deal), the underlying message can easily be taken as a veiled threat: were the EU to lose the support of the UK in security, it would be detrimental to everyone\u2019s future safety \u2013 so let\u2019s play nicely on the trade deal.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/philip-seargeant-317748\">Philip Seargeant<\/a>, Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, <em><a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/the-open-university-748\">The Open University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>This article was originally published on <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\">The Conversation<\/a>. Read the <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/a-linguists-guide-to-the-theresa-may-article-50-letter-75436\">original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>With the delivery of Theresa May\u2019s letter to Donald Tusk, the European Council president, the UK gave official notification of its intention to leave the EU. The letter not only signalled the legal start of the Brexit process, but also gave the British prime minister the chance to frame the tone of the negotiations. The [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":5357,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5355\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}