Page 189 - 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. 189
political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 189
Europhobes Europhiles
They want to surrender our Croatia into the By entering the EU, Croatia is coming back
hands of big masters (R. Šikić, representative home (J. Kosor, HDZ, former prime mini-
of civil organization “I love Croatia”) ster)
We are going to depend on some maharajas Giving up on the EU is giving up on oursel-
(R. Šikić, representative of civil organization ves (I. Antičević-Marinović, SDP)
“I love Croatia”)
We will come to the situation that, throu- We started the negotiation process when
gh financial occupation, we will be left bare foot the EU was experiencing its first tsunami,
on the soil of our own country (M. Franci- when France and the Netherlands said NO
sković, representative of civil organization to further expansion (A. Plenković, state
“Be brave”) secretary for European integrations)
We have to turn to history to learn how to pre- Croatia is a fertile ground which is not used
serve our identity (M. Francisković, repre- enough ( N. Vidošević president of HGK)
sentative of civil organization “Be brave”)
People who are not identifying themselves Today we are in front of the door, but tomor-
with the EU are victims of intellectual violence row we will be inside, voting (H. Marušić, as-
(N. Raspudić, political commentator) sistant of foreign affair minister)
Europhiles are blind with healthy eyes in their We have to believe in ourselves, have con-
head (A. Milardović, professor of political fidence and decide for the EU, because it is
sciences) the most elite club in the world (A. Plenković,
state secretary for European integration)
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has demonstrated that ideolog-
ical differences between Europhobes and Europhiles are manifested in
their respective expressions, and that both sides use expressive and ideo-
logically marked terms to persuade, or to sustain a belief already held by,
their audience. As Fairclough (1989: 152) emphasizes: “Just as even a sin-
gle sentence has traditionally been seen to imply a whole language, so a
single discourse implies a whole society.”
3.2. Rhetorical Argumentation Analysis
Rhetorical analysis introduces the argument component into the
speeches of Europhobes and Europhiles. Our main goal was to examine
the nature of arguments, to evaluate them as weak or strong, good or fal-
lacious arguments. Despite some differences in the preferred argument
types between opponents and supporters, the similarities are obvious.
As was pointed out above, emotional appeals were dominant, espe-
cially the appeal to fear (loss of sovereignty if Croatia becomes a mem-
ber of EU or economical collapse if it doesn’t). More traditional logical
and epistemological analyses regularly presuppose a strict, and ultimate-
Europhobes Europhiles
They want to surrender our Croatia into the By entering the EU, Croatia is coming back
hands of big masters (R. Šikić, representative home (J. Kosor, HDZ, former prime mini-
of civil organization “I love Croatia”) ster)
We are going to depend on some maharajas Giving up on the EU is giving up on oursel-
(R. Šikić, representative of civil organization ves (I. Antičević-Marinović, SDP)
“I love Croatia”)
We will come to the situation that, throu- We started the negotiation process when
gh financial occupation, we will be left bare foot the EU was experiencing its first tsunami,
on the soil of our own country (M. Franci- when France and the Netherlands said NO
sković, representative of civil organization to further expansion (A. Plenković, state
“Be brave”) secretary for European integrations)
We have to turn to history to learn how to pre- Croatia is a fertile ground which is not used
serve our identity (M. Francisković, repre- enough ( N. Vidošević president of HGK)
sentative of civil organization “Be brave”)
People who are not identifying themselves Today we are in front of the door, but tomor-
with the EU are victims of intellectual violence row we will be inside, voting (H. Marušić, as-
(N. Raspudić, political commentator) sistant of foreign affair minister)
Europhiles are blind with healthy eyes in their We have to believe in ourselves, have con-
head (A. Milardović, professor of political fidence and decide for the EU, because it is
sciences) the most elite club in the world (A. Plenković,
state secretary for European integration)
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has demonstrated that ideolog-
ical differences between Europhobes and Europhiles are manifested in
their respective expressions, and that both sides use expressive and ideo-
logically marked terms to persuade, or to sustain a belief already held by,
their audience. As Fairclough (1989: 152) emphasizes: “Just as even a sin-
gle sentence has traditionally been seen to imply a whole language, so a
single discourse implies a whole society.”
3.2. Rhetorical Argumentation Analysis
Rhetorical analysis introduces the argument component into the
speeches of Europhobes and Europhiles. Our main goal was to examine
the nature of arguments, to evaluate them as weak or strong, good or fal-
lacious arguments. Despite some differences in the preferred argument
types between opponents and supporters, the similarities are obvious.
As was pointed out above, emotional appeals were dominant, espe-
cially the appeal to fear (loss of sovereignty if Croatia becomes a mem-
ber of EU or economical collapse if it doesn’t). More traditional logical
and epistemological analyses regularly presuppose a strict, and ultimate-
