New Research Unveils Complex Dimensions of Left-Right Political Associations Through Analysis of German Election Candidates’ Language
A groundbreaking study by political scientist Lukas Warode unveils the intricate ways in which political ideology is linguistically constructed along the traditional left-right spectrum. Rather than relying on conventional survey scales or fixed party labels, Warode’s research innovatively analyzes open-ended survey responses from German federal election candidates collected over three consecutive election waves (2013, 2017, and 2021). This novel approach reveals how associations with ideological categories are shaped not only by political positions themselves but also by the semantic context in which ideological terms are used.
Warode’s theoretical framework introduces a two-dimensional model, juxtaposing a candidate’s political placement with a semantic dimension that reflects how words connote “leftness” or “rightness” within political discourse. Through this method, the study distinguishes between what it calls “in-ideology” associations—where individuals align semantically and positionally with their ideological leaning—and “out-ideology” associations, which describe how individuals associate with opposing ideological language. This nuanced lens exposes the multifaceted usage patterns that standard one-dimensional political scales obscure.
Among the most striking findings is the asymmetry in how positive and negative connotations are distributed across these ideological spectra. Candidates on the left predominantly use positive language to describe left-wing concepts, emphasizing ideals like “justice,” “solidarity,” and “peace.” Contrastingly, left-leaning respondents’ out-ideology associations for right-wing terminology often invoke negatively charged “isms,” such as “paternalism” or “socialism,” revealing an oppositional framing. Similarly, right-wing out-ideology associations frequently evoke starkly negative terms like “racism,” “fascism,” and “nationalism,” though “conservatism” presents a more neutral, albeit still ideologically charged, position on average.
The study furthermore exposes a comparative scarcity of positive right-wing associations overall. While positive left-wing associations are frequently mentioned and semantically coherent, right-wing affirmative associations—such as “patriotism,” “rule of law,” and “personal responsibility”—appear less frequently and exhibit more semantic divergence. This disparity underscores potential differences in ideological cohesion and framing strategies on either side of the political spectrum.
Neutral terms, surprisingly, create a shared linguistic space across ideological divides. Words like “state,” “politics,” and “freedom” surface in both left- and right-wing discourses, but their connotative nuances differ markedly depending on the speaker’s political stance. “Freedom,” for example, universally carries a positive valence but is conceptually divided, with left-leaning individuals associating it with social participation and equality, while right-leaning individuals emphasize economic liberty. This highlights the complexity inherent in political language, where the same term can inhabit multiple, ideologically inflected semantic fields.
Warode’s research also critically addresses methodological concerns in mapping such associations. While analyzing individual words risks losing important contextual meaning—especially for multi-word political concepts like “social justice”—the proximity of conceptually inseparable terms in the two-dimensional semantic model supports the validity of a word-level analytical approach. This provides a powerful scalable framework for linguistic analysis of political ideology without oversimplifying the richness of language.
This dual-dimensional framework foregrounds the inherent tension between uni- and multidimensional models of political ideology. The close semantic proximity of traditionally opposed “isms” such as “socialism” and “nationalism” challenges conventional left-right dichotomies and calls for further exploration of ideological meaning beyond linear spectra. Such complexity cautions against reductive interpretations and invites future research to consider alternative ideological axes, such as the tripartite division of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism, as well as temporal shifts in ideological language shaped by socio-political events.
The study’s insights extend well beyond the German context. The findings prompt reconsideration of the applicability of left-right frameworks to other political cultures, particularly the United States, where the liberal-conservative scale dominates discourse. Despite conceptual overlaps, Warode suggests distinctions between these scales necessitate tailored analysis of ideological language and its affective dynamics. Moreover, the study’s focus on elite political actors—federal election candidates—raises important questions about representativeness and calls for expanded research incorporating citizen-level data to capture the full spectrum of political expression.
Warode’s model also complements and deepens understanding of affective polarization by shifting the analytical gaze from parties to ideological poles themselves. Here, ideological in-groups and out-groups replace parties in structuring political language, with positive and negative connotations shaping the semantic field in line with psychological theories of in-group favoritism and out-group bias. Importantly, this reveals the possibility of multipolar ideological dynamics, incorporating centrist and fringe groups, particularly in multi-party systems where ideological ownership is as contested and complex as policy ownership.
Language ownership plays a crucial role in these ideological spaces. Parties such as Germany’s liberal FDP and left-wing DIE LINKE may “own” specific ideological labels like “liberal” or “left,” respectively, contributing to the contest over ideological narratives. This interplay between language, ideology, and party identity poses challenges to democratic communication, as competing semantic fields can deepen polarization and restrict mutual understanding.
Beyond theoretical contributions, Warode’s findings have powerful implications for political communication studies. The distinct framing strategies of left and right-wing political actors influence how ideology is expressed and interpreted, affecting everything from parliamentary debates to social media discourse. The observed linguistic consistency on the left compared to variance on the right may reflect differences in ideological cohesion, historical experience, or cognitive framing, thus providing a valuable lens for examining political sophistication and rhetorical strategy.
This research importantly calls for cross-national investigations to validate and enrich its findings. Variables such as party system structure, coalition frequency, and institutional design profoundly affect how ideology is linguistically encoded and operationalized. Combining elite speech with citizen discourse promises a comprehensive mapping of ideological landscapes, enabling scholars to better understand the interplay between political representation and political language in democratic systems worldwide.
This study also reinforces the idea that political ideology is not merely an abstract category but a dynamic social construct that evolves alongside political events and societal shifts. For example, changes in the semantic associations of concepts like “racism” or “security” around major events such as the migration crisis underscore the adaptive character of ideological language. Tracking these evolutions is crucial for comprehending the fluidity of political meanings and the emergence of new ideological conflicts.
Ultimately, Warode’s pioneering approach offers a powerful methodological foundation to map ideological associations in fine-grained detail while illuminating the complex psychological and linguistic mechanisms underpinning political polarization. As democratic societies confront increasing ideological divides, understanding the semantic contours of political language will be essential for fostering dialogue, reducing miscommunication, and addressing the roots of political conflict.
The study’s publication in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications marks a significant contribution to interdisciplinary political research and computational social science. Its innovative integration of semantic embedding techniques with political positioning models opens new frontiers for analyzing political language and offers tools adaptable to multiple national and political contexts.
As political discourse worldwide grapples with questions of identity, belonging, and ideological framing, mapping left-right associations at the linguistic level becomes both a theoretical imperative and a practical necessity. Warode’s study lays the groundwork for future research to unravel the complex fabric of political ideology, language, and emotion, bringing greater clarity to how societies conceptualize and contest the meaning of left and right.
Subject of Research:
Associations and semantic constructions of left-right political ideology as expressed by German federal election candidates through open-ended survey responses, analyzed via a two-dimensional framework combining political position and semantic meaning.
Article Title:
Mapping left-right associations: a framework using open-ended survey responses and political positions
Article References:
Warode, L. Mapping left-right associations: a framework using open-ended survey responses and political positions. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1318 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05679-x
Image Credits:
AI Generated
