Page 183 - 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. 183
the political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 183
the former and the current prime minister, Jadranka Kosor and Zoran
Milanović, respectively, as well as the former and the current minister of
foreign affairs, Gordan Jandroković and Vesna Pusić (all four of whom
can be regarded as EU supporters). Opponents of EU included leaders
of right wing parties Daniel Srb and Ruža Tomašić, as well as activists,
and representatives of civil organizations, for instance Roko Šikić, Žel-
jko Sačić, Marko Francisković etc.).
The analysis conducted in this paper was based, on the one hand, on
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which encourages the critical study
of discourse within its discursive-historical context of production (van
Dijk, 2001) and, on the other, on rhetorical analysis which aims at ex-
tending CDA beyond lexico-grammatical analysis by introducing an ar-
gumentation component.
The study of political discourse in the terms of language analysis was
conducted for the first time after World War II when linguists tried to
understand and explain the roles and importance of language and com-
munication in totalitarian regimes and their propaganda. They demon-
strated how political discourse is determined by society in what may be
termed “a social practice” (see Wodak and Meyer, 2012: 17).
Our method is similar to that used for analyzing the discourse of
proponents and opponents of the Iraq war (Sahlane, 2012) which also
combined CDA and rhetorical argumentation analysis.
Critical discourse analysis included the examination of vocabulary,
especially the usage of ideologically marked words (e.g. Euroslavia), the
usage of expressive words with emotional value (e.g. national conscious-
ness, independence), and figures of speech, especially metaphors (such as
tunnel of darkness or the light at the end of the tunnel). The rhetorical
analysis was primarily oriented to rhetorical argumentation and aimed
at tracing differences and similarities in the means of persuasion used by
opponents and supporters of Croatia’s EU membership.
Tindale (2004: 20) explains rhetorical argumentation:
Rhetorical argumentation draws features from the rhetorical tradition and
mixes them with newer innovations. For the core of what the tradition pro-
vides, another Aristotelian triad is useful: that organization of the rhetor-
ical that distinguishes ethos, pathos and logos. The processes of rhetorical ar-
gumentation meld together these three bringing into relief and inextrica-
bly wedding to one another in the argumentative situation, the arguer, au-
dience and “argument”. To understand the argumentation is to understand
the interactions of these components; to evaluate argumentation is to do
the same.
the former and the current prime minister, Jadranka Kosor and Zoran
Milanović, respectively, as well as the former and the current minister of
foreign affairs, Gordan Jandroković and Vesna Pusić (all four of whom
can be regarded as EU supporters). Opponents of EU included leaders
of right wing parties Daniel Srb and Ruža Tomašić, as well as activists,
and representatives of civil organizations, for instance Roko Šikić, Žel-
jko Sačić, Marko Francisković etc.).
The analysis conducted in this paper was based, on the one hand, on
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which encourages the critical study
of discourse within its discursive-historical context of production (van
Dijk, 2001) and, on the other, on rhetorical analysis which aims at ex-
tending CDA beyond lexico-grammatical analysis by introducing an ar-
gumentation component.
The study of political discourse in the terms of language analysis was
conducted for the first time after World War II when linguists tried to
understand and explain the roles and importance of language and com-
munication in totalitarian regimes and their propaganda. They demon-
strated how political discourse is determined by society in what may be
termed “a social practice” (see Wodak and Meyer, 2012: 17).
Our method is similar to that used for analyzing the discourse of
proponents and opponents of the Iraq war (Sahlane, 2012) which also
combined CDA and rhetorical argumentation analysis.
Critical discourse analysis included the examination of vocabulary,
especially the usage of ideologically marked words (e.g. Euroslavia), the
usage of expressive words with emotional value (e.g. national conscious-
ness, independence), and figures of speech, especially metaphors (such as
tunnel of darkness or the light at the end of the tunnel). The rhetorical
analysis was primarily oriented to rhetorical argumentation and aimed
at tracing differences and similarities in the means of persuasion used by
opponents and supporters of Croatia’s EU membership.
Tindale (2004: 20) explains rhetorical argumentation:
Rhetorical argumentation draws features from the rhetorical tradition and
mixes them with newer innovations. For the core of what the tradition pro-
vides, another Aristotelian triad is useful: that organization of the rhetor-
ical that distinguishes ethos, pathos and logos. The processes of rhetorical ar-
gumentation meld together these three bringing into relief and inextrica-
bly wedding to one another in the argumentative situation, the arguer, au-
dience and “argument”. To understand the argumentation is to understand
the interactions of these components; to evaluate argumentation is to do
the same.
