The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 51 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Ministry of Information and the linguistic design of Britain’s World War II propaganda: What archival documents can tell us about political discourse
Open accessAbstract
This article argues that metalinguistic documents in historical archives are a useful source for political discourse analysts to explore. With reference to the archives of the British Ministry of Information in World War II, it shows that such documents are revealing of the orders of discourse and the language ideologies that contribute to the production of political discourse. Archival documents can help us to understand the ways in which political actors conceive of the linguistic strategies that are typically the focus of our discourse analytic work. In a field which places great theoretical emphasis on the contextual significance of political language, archival documents thus represent a crucial, but hitherto overlooked, source of evidence. More specifically, the article demonstrates that the Ministry of Information’s civil servants paid a great deal of attention to language, working in highly reflexive ways to produce their discourse, and that one of the linguistic strategies that was particularly intensely discussed was the use of informal and personalised language. Those civil servants were working on a ‘synthetically personalised’ language half a century before discourse analysts began paying sustained attention to such a strategy.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
The article argues that historical archival metalinguistic documents are an overlooked but valuable source for political discourse analysis, using Britain’s World War II Ministry of Information as a case. It shows the Ministry’s civil servants were intensely reflexive about language and debated informal, personalised strategies later theorised as synthetic personalisation.
Key findings
- Archival documents reveal an intensely reflexive order of discourse: officials discussed wording down to specific words like *freedom* and *crusade* and pronouns, especially *you*, commissioned Mass-Observation feedback, and used “pre-testing and post-testing” to fine-tune language.
- The Red Posters were heavily discussed, with at least eight Ministry staff putting forward suggestions; *KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON* was never officially distributed, while the other two posters went out in their hundreds of thousands in autumn 1939. Mass-Observation criticised the posters’ abstract vocabulary and the *YOUR COURAGE* poster’s pronouns as suggesting a divide between rulers (“us”) and ruled (“you”).
- A language-ideological tension ran between formal, authoritative government language and an emergent colloquial, informal approach; Max Nicholson advocated a “more colloquial appeal,” Rohan Butler wrote that “affable informality in the eminent” had propaganda value, and planned newsletters were to adopt a “private correspondent” style with gossip, anecdotes, and a pen-name.
- The Ministry’s practices anticipated Fairclough’s later concepts of “technologisation” and “synthetic personalisation” by about half a century, even when such personalisation was not evident in the public output.
Methods
- Qualitative archival study of the Ministry of Information’s INF1 series at the National Archives, Kew, visited in early 2019, focusing on files including INF1/720, INF1/723, INF1/721, INF1/722, and INF1/226.
- Analysis of minutes, memoranda, drafts, letters, and reports from 1939, alongside Mass-Observation reports on civilian morale and propaganda reception, plus secondary historical sources.
- The article traces metalinguistic decision-making and the language ideologies informing the Ministry’s production of political discourse.
Limitations
- The paper states that archival research works with the past: the documents discussed are 80 years old at the time of writing, British Government materials are currently available only after between 20 and 30 years, and some might object that this historical focus costs a critical grasp on the discourse of the present.
- The paper states that documentation of political actors’ metalinguistic decision-making will not provide an exhaustive or infallible record of what they aimed to do with language and why.
- Evident from the text: the study is a single historical case focused on the Ministry of Information and specific archival files, and the author explicitly says the aim is not to provide definitive answers that hold across all contexts.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Own interpretation · 25 Sources not found · 13 No basis given · 12 Own result · 11 Not checked yet · 4 No full text of the sources
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that one of the linguistic strategies that was particularly intensely discussed was the use of informal and personalised language.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, those decisions were shaped by a language ideological tension between two conceptions of what political language should look like: on one hand, the view that it should be authoritative, distant and formal, and, on the other, an emergent view that it should be colloquial and informal, seeking to linguistically bridge the 'gulf' between government and citizens.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on 2 assumptions not shown here.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, the article demonstrates that the Ministry of Information's civil servants paid a great deal of attention to language, working in highly reflexive ways to produce their discourse”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With reference to the archives of the British Ministry of Information in World War II, it shows that such documents are revealing of the orders of discourse and the language ideologies that contribute to the production of political discourse.”
plainstates an associationSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within this large set of files, most of the material concerning linguistic planning comes from a few particular sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption not shown here.
20 more claims
Create a free account to see all 98 claims and to verify the 1 reference still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 63
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Citations
Cites
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Goffman, E. (2023) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003320609-59 · Cited by 17,564
Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002) · doi:10.4135/9781849208871 · Cited by 4,118
Buchanan, I., Bourdieu, P., Raymond, G. G., & Adamson, M. (1993) · SubStance · doi:10.2307/3685295 · Cited by 3,018
(1978) · Cited by 2,948
Agha, A. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618284 · Cited by 2,460
The Discursive Construction of National Identity
Liebhart, K., de Cillia, R., & Reisigl, M. (2009) · Edinburgh University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780748637355 · Cited by 2,241
Chilton, P. (2004) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203561218 · Cited by 2,134
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805226 · Cited by 1,537
Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing
Paltridge, B. (2006) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.003 · Cited by 1,234
Bell, A., & Garrett, P. (1998) · Cited by 1,191
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Atkinson JM, 1984, Our Masters’ Voices
- Balfour M, 1979, Propaganda in War 1939–1945
- Butler RD’O, 1941, The Roots of National Socialism 1783–1933
- Calder A, 1969, The People’s War: Britain 1939–1945
- Cameron D, 1995, Verbal Hygiene
- Crossman RHS, 1937, Plato To-Day
- Fairclough N, 1996, Texts and Practices, 71
- Fairclough N, 2015, Language and Power
- Foucault M, 1981, Untying the Text, 48
- Hatherley O, 2016, The Ministry of Nostalgia
- Heller M, 2017, Language, Capitalism, Colonialism
- Joseph JE, 1990, Ideologies of Language
- Lewis B, 2017, Keep Calm and Carry on: The Truth behind the Poster
- McLaine I, 1979, Ministry of Morale
- Martin J, 2014, Politics and Rhetoric
- Mass-Observation, 1940, War Begins at Home
- Mugglestone L, 2003, Talking Proper
- Nicolson N, 1970, Harold Nicolson: Diaries and Letters 1939–45, 94
- Niedzielski NA, 2003, Folk Linguistics
- Orwell G, 2010, Language and Politics, 1, 22
- Partington A, 2018, The Language of Persuasion in Politics
- Spencer-Bennett J, The Discursive Construction of Economic Inequality
- Stubbs M, 1997, Evolving Models of Language
- Thurlow C, 2020, The Business of Words: Wordsmiths, Linguists and Other Language Workers
- Toye R, 2013, The Roar of the Lion
Cited by
Spencer-Bennett, J. (2020) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404520000305 · Cited by 4
Self-citationKupetytė, R. (2022) · Filosofija Sociologija · doi:10.6001/fil-soc.v33i4.4841 · Cited by 1
Davadason Peter, A. (2025) · Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)
Metadata
- Authors
- Spencer-Bennett, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Spencer-Bennett, Joe
- ORCID
- Spencer-Bennett, Joe
- Venue
- Discourse & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-11-25
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 329-347
- ISSN
- 0957-9265 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3624
- OpenAlex
- W2990849642
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Discourse & Society (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Cultural and political discourse analysis
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Communication › Rhetoric and Communication Studies
- Keywords
- Ministry of Information, World War II propaganda, political discourse, archival sources, language ideology, colloquial language, public sector employees, British propaganda, history of discourse analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Ministry of Information and the linguistic design of Britain’s World War II propaganda: What archival documents can tell us about political discourse. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0957926519889125
- The paper
- Spencer-Bennett, J. (2020). The Ministry of Information and the linguistic design of Britain’s World War II propaganda: What archival documents can tell us about political discourse. Discourse & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519889125
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
