Page 167 - 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. 167
rhetoric of crisis: polish parliamentarian
debates on the future of the eu 167
aiming at promoting private interests at the expense of the citizens and
damaging to the state. This simple image was supposed to convince those
hesitant ones to accept the definition of the situation, i.e. the diagnosis
of the condition of the state according to PiS. Metaphor is a convenient
tool in political polemics, since it is difficult to deny or to undermine it.
In the example above the opposition had embarked on such an attempt –
it used the same metaphor to convince the voters that although the play-
ers change the table still stands and the proclaimed renewal of the state is
just a pretense. The above example clearly indicates how important a role
the metaphor plays as an aid in defining the situation.
Rhetoric analyses may be seen as a test in what way we persuade
others by means of symbols, as well as how symbols influence people
(Schiappa, 2003: 3). Metaphor is a specific carrier of symbolic meaning,
therefore in the studied political utterances it is treated as an element of
the argument and not the embellishment (ornatus). Therefore the analy-
sis of the metaphors used by politicians must respond to the same ques-
tions we answer when we try to define the situation. Thus it concerns all
the issues covered in the theory of stasis (Lausberg, 2002: 67–87). We
are talking about the issues concerning the identity of the participants
of a given debate. It also concerns the limitations presented by the giv-
en rhetoric genre.
It is worth pointing out that in the case of economic crisis and the
future of the EU the classic questions of status coniecturalis, definitivus,
qualitatis (i.e.: is it there? what is it? what is it like?) bring in many po-
tential answers. Moreover in contemporary politics we often deal with
the phenomenon defined by the ancients in reference to the court trial.
We mean a status finitionis, which is an attempt to find a name for what
has happened (Cicero, 1993: De inv. I, 8, 10). The correspondence be-
tween a thing and a word is an important issue in the public discourse.
Contemporary law provides sanctions for unsubstantiated use of certain
terms. Therefore sometimes the use of a metaphor may be an attempt to
avoid penal responsibility. Calling the prime minister a pitiful clown
is quite a different matter than presenting a picturesque image of a cir-
cus, in which an ignorant clown usurped the place of a director, even if
the only possible interpretation of that image is the recognition that the
state is the circus.
A metaphor is a complex phenomenon. We may view it both as a lin-
guistic phenomenon, as well as a cognitive one (the thriving practice of
cognitive analysis of the metaphors is a proof). We may study its emo-
tional dimension but also its socio-cultural ramifications. We may ana-
debates on the future of the eu 167
aiming at promoting private interests at the expense of the citizens and
damaging to the state. This simple image was supposed to convince those
hesitant ones to accept the definition of the situation, i.e. the diagnosis
of the condition of the state according to PiS. Metaphor is a convenient
tool in political polemics, since it is difficult to deny or to undermine it.
In the example above the opposition had embarked on such an attempt –
it used the same metaphor to convince the voters that although the play-
ers change the table still stands and the proclaimed renewal of the state is
just a pretense. The above example clearly indicates how important a role
the metaphor plays as an aid in defining the situation.
Rhetoric analyses may be seen as a test in what way we persuade
others by means of symbols, as well as how symbols influence people
(Schiappa, 2003: 3). Metaphor is a specific carrier of symbolic meaning,
therefore in the studied political utterances it is treated as an element of
the argument and not the embellishment (ornatus). Therefore the analy-
sis of the metaphors used by politicians must respond to the same ques-
tions we answer when we try to define the situation. Thus it concerns all
the issues covered in the theory of stasis (Lausberg, 2002: 67–87). We
are talking about the issues concerning the identity of the participants
of a given debate. It also concerns the limitations presented by the giv-
en rhetoric genre.
It is worth pointing out that in the case of economic crisis and the
future of the EU the classic questions of status coniecturalis, definitivus,
qualitatis (i.e.: is it there? what is it? what is it like?) bring in many po-
tential answers. Moreover in contemporary politics we often deal with
the phenomenon defined by the ancients in reference to the court trial.
We mean a status finitionis, which is an attempt to find a name for what
has happened (Cicero, 1993: De inv. I, 8, 10). The correspondence be-
tween a thing and a word is an important issue in the public discourse.
Contemporary law provides sanctions for unsubstantiated use of certain
terms. Therefore sometimes the use of a metaphor may be an attempt to
avoid penal responsibility. Calling the prime minister a pitiful clown
is quite a different matter than presenting a picturesque image of a cir-
cus, in which an ignorant clown usurped the place of a director, even if
the only possible interpretation of that image is the recognition that the
state is the circus.
A metaphor is a complex phenomenon. We may view it both as a lin-
guistic phenomenon, as well as a cognitive one (the thriving practice of
cognitive analysis of the metaphors is a proof). We may study its emo-
tional dimension but also its socio-cultural ramifications. We may ana-
