Page 172 - 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. 172
What Do We Know about the World?
ical formation is required to stand fast on the captain’s bridge when cit-
izens handed him the right and a chance of exercising power.” As it ap-
pears the position on the bridge has to be seen as a counter to the fake
courage that can be demonstrated in the political ad. Juxtaposing some-
thing true and fake is a permanent rhetorical device used by politicians.
The next example of contradicting reality and appearance can be
found in the metaphor of a remedy. The economic crisis and turmoil
in the EU are treated as a disease that has to be cured. The opposition
speaks of harmful effects of the drugs used so far, i.e. the rescue meas-
ures adopted by the European leaders. The Prime Minister treats the op-
position’s ideas with disdain: “You want to look for prescriptions, you
want to help , so go and look for them there where they can be found
in order to use the remedy to fight the disease, and not simply because
somebody had an idea. We cannot afford to use fake instruments.” The
career of the word true in the political discourse is still another matter
well presented particularly by the language of the propaganda research-
ers (Klemperer, 1992; Głowiński, 1991).
We often deal with the image of a feast, sitting at the same table.
Contrary to the appearances it is a complex metaphor. The government
speaks of the danger of transformation of the Union into an exclusive
club for the wealthiest, and explains that it is not evident to every mem-
ber state, that all countries should sit at the same table – some believe
that the functional criterion must be the membership in the Euro zone.
In this approach sitting at the table does not necessarily mean a feast but
rather the possibility of participating in the negotiation. An elaborate
image presented by one of the envoys of the opposition, it refers to the
perception of the EU as the source of luxury and welfare.
The MP explained that to lend money to the International Mone-
tary Fund from the budget reserve was like “paying insurance fee for a
house in which we do not live, in order to relieve wealthier neighbours,
because we will participate in the decision making on the menu of their
dinner and maybe we will deliver some produce from our garden and
will have the honor to clean the table after that”. In those sentences there
is contained the attitude towards the EU characteristic of many mil-
leaux. On the one hand the Union seems to be something desirable and
good (after all those are the wealthy neighbours), but on the other hand
as something unjust, harmful and hungry for costs and funding. In spite
of the irony in this imagery there rings an echo of the subordinate posi-
tion of our country.
ical formation is required to stand fast on the captain’s bridge when cit-
izens handed him the right and a chance of exercising power.” As it ap-
pears the position on the bridge has to be seen as a counter to the fake
courage that can be demonstrated in the political ad. Juxtaposing some-
thing true and fake is a permanent rhetorical device used by politicians.
The next example of contradicting reality and appearance can be
found in the metaphor of a remedy. The economic crisis and turmoil
in the EU are treated as a disease that has to be cured. The opposition
speaks of harmful effects of the drugs used so far, i.e. the rescue meas-
ures adopted by the European leaders. The Prime Minister treats the op-
position’s ideas with disdain: “You want to look for prescriptions, you
want to help , so go and look for them there where they can be found
in order to use the remedy to fight the disease, and not simply because
somebody had an idea. We cannot afford to use fake instruments.” The
career of the word true in the political discourse is still another matter
well presented particularly by the language of the propaganda research-
ers (Klemperer, 1992; Głowiński, 1991).
We often deal with the image of a feast, sitting at the same table.
Contrary to the appearances it is a complex metaphor. The government
speaks of the danger of transformation of the Union into an exclusive
club for the wealthiest, and explains that it is not evident to every mem-
ber state, that all countries should sit at the same table – some believe
that the functional criterion must be the membership in the Euro zone.
In this approach sitting at the table does not necessarily mean a feast but
rather the possibility of participating in the negotiation. An elaborate
image presented by one of the envoys of the opposition, it refers to the
perception of the EU as the source of luxury and welfare.
The MP explained that to lend money to the International Mone-
tary Fund from the budget reserve was like “paying insurance fee for a
house in which we do not live, in order to relieve wealthier neighbours,
because we will participate in the decision making on the menu of their
dinner and maybe we will deliver some produce from our garden and
will have the honor to clean the table after that”. In those sentences there
is contained the attitude towards the EU characteristic of many mil-
leaux. On the one hand the Union seems to be something desirable and
good (after all those are the wealthy neighbours), but on the other hand
as something unjust, harmful and hungry for costs and funding. In spite
of the irony in this imagery there rings an echo of the subordinate posi-
tion of our country.
