I agree with the previous answer that evidence of power abuse may not always be linguistic in nature. The only suggestion I can make is that the power abuse may sometimes be marked by the use of either lexical items or propositions that can be interpreted as either patronising or explicitly insulting towards those who are perceived by the speaker/writer to be of lower rank or status in a given social environment.

Power abuse is not always linguistically transparent. However, one way to detect it is to consider the social roles played by different people, and measure the transgressions occurring to their respective social roles.

I agree with the previous answer that evidence of power abuse may not always be linguistic in nature. The only suggestion I can make is that the power abuse may sometimes be marked by the use of either lexical items or propositions that can be interpreted as either patronising or explicitly insulting towards those who are perceived by the speaker/writer to be of lower rank or status in a given social environment.

Thank you Brian . That is the answerI am rrying to elicit.Any sources in support of your answer? I mean sources supporting the use of lexical words as a practice of power abuse. Thanks

Van Dijk, T.A., 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2): 249-283.

Maybe? And of course Fairclough's 'Language and Power' is in the right area. I'm afraid I have not kept up with recent CDA publications.