Page 160 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 160
What Do We Know about the World?
and give a name to that which is going on or is about to happen. In order
to prove that signing of a fiscal pact is a good solution can be done only
after we have demonstrated that the situation requires signing of such a
pact. Political action largely depends on the ability to provide meaning
to significant people, events or processes.
The following analysis of the parliamentary debates is an attempt
to answer a question in what way a specific rhetorical device – a met-
aphor – is used by politicians when they define the situation. The ob-
jective of the analysis contains the selected debates concerning the eco-
nomic crisis and the Future of the European Union, which were held in
the Polish Seym in the years 2008–2011. The research question concerns
first of all the functionality of the metaphor in the political discourse,
as well as its usefulness in the main task a politician faces i.e. imposing
on others their own interpretation of events, and the understanding of
facts and processes.1 The economic crisis forces politicians to make quick
decisions in a situation of many unknowns. Political leaders today – as
Giand omenico Majone (1992) rightly said – can only utilize arguments
in favour of competing hypotheses rather than hard data. Therefore, an
important question to pose in the analysis of political rhetoric concerns
the tools used for constructing a definition of the situation. How can
politicians justify their choice of one of the future hypothetical scenari-
os? How do they argue that the interpretation of reality which they pro-
pose is correct, and thus their decisions also are appropriate? One of the
tools used for this is a metaphor. Analysis of metaphors used in politi-
cal discourse have repeatedly shown that they can serve for construct-
ing political myths, can be a part of argumentative strategies (Chart-
eris-Black, 2005), and the expression of an adopted model of the world
(Lakoff, 2004). The question is whether they may also serve as an indi-
cator of ritualization of political debate? Dispute can be described as a
“ritual chaos” (Czyzewski et al., 1997). It is a type of discussion, where
despite sharp expressions, all roles and arguments are known and remain
unchanged. It is thus difficult to speak of a real debate, rather than a cer-
emonial skirmish.
What is the situation definition? What are its components and what
impact does it have on the rhetoric strategy of the speaker? – these are
the questions that define the structure of the first part of the investiga-
tion. The second part is concentrated on the features of the metaphors
1 The quotations appearing in the text were taken from the stenographic records found in the web-
page of the Polish Seym, www.sejm.gov.pl
and give a name to that which is going on or is about to happen. In order
to prove that signing of a fiscal pact is a good solution can be done only
after we have demonstrated that the situation requires signing of such a
pact. Political action largely depends on the ability to provide meaning
to significant people, events or processes.
The following analysis of the parliamentary debates is an attempt
to answer a question in what way a specific rhetorical device – a met-
aphor – is used by politicians when they define the situation. The ob-
jective of the analysis contains the selected debates concerning the eco-
nomic crisis and the Future of the European Union, which were held in
the Polish Seym in the years 2008–2011. The research question concerns
first of all the functionality of the metaphor in the political discourse,
as well as its usefulness in the main task a politician faces i.e. imposing
on others their own interpretation of events, and the understanding of
facts and processes.1 The economic crisis forces politicians to make quick
decisions in a situation of many unknowns. Political leaders today – as
Giand omenico Majone (1992) rightly said – can only utilize arguments
in favour of competing hypotheses rather than hard data. Therefore, an
important question to pose in the analysis of political rhetoric concerns
the tools used for constructing a definition of the situation. How can
politicians justify their choice of one of the future hypothetical scenari-
os? How do they argue that the interpretation of reality which they pro-
pose is correct, and thus their decisions also are appropriate? One of the
tools used for this is a metaphor. Analysis of metaphors used in politi-
cal discourse have repeatedly shown that they can serve for construct-
ing political myths, can be a part of argumentative strategies (Chart-
eris-Black, 2005), and the expression of an adopted model of the world
(Lakoff, 2004). The question is whether they may also serve as an indi-
cator of ritualization of political debate? Dispute can be described as a
“ritual chaos” (Czyzewski et al., 1997). It is a type of discussion, where
despite sharp expressions, all roles and arguments are known and remain
unchanged. It is thus difficult to speak of a real debate, rather than a cer-
emonial skirmish.
What is the situation definition? What are its components and what
impact does it have on the rhetoric strategy of the speaker? – these are
the questions that define the structure of the first part of the investiga-
tion. The second part is concentrated on the features of the metaphors
1 The quotations appearing in the text were taken from the stenographic records found in the web-
page of the Polish Seym, www.sejm.gov.pl
