Page 198 - 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. 198
What Do We Know about the World?
nent gave him an example of small countries which are successful and
big countries which are not, concluding that the size of the population is
not significant for the prosperity of a country). Further on, when asked
about alternatives to the EU, he responded: “The alternative to the EU is
Croatization of the planet” which, according to him, is possible insofar
as Croats currently live in 40 different countries all over the world. So,
on the one hand, there are not enough Croatians to succeed in the EU,
while a “Croatization of the planet” is claimed to be possible. Because
of the obvious contradictions and the absurdity of the idea of a “Croati-
zation of the planet,” this speaker was not taken seriously, and his argu-
mentation soon came to be seen as rationally unacceptable.
A similar answer to the frequently asked question “What is the al-
ternative to the EU” was provided by Gordan Masnjak, a representative
of the civil organization “No to EU” who addressed a Croatian audience
with the answer “the alternative are all of you!”
Often represented by speakers with an aggressive presentation, the
Europhobes’ absurd claims and weak argumentation did not enjoy a
strong credibility in the Croatian public sphere. The weakest point of
their argumentation, and thus one of the reasons why the Europhiles ap-
peal to fear was more effective, consisted in not being able to answer the
question on the alternative to the EU. Answers such as “the alternative
are the Croatian people; the alternative is a Croatization of planet; the
alternative is Croatia becoming like Switzerland” were neither persua-
sive nor convincing. The risk of an economic collapse and a poor credit
rating (as consequences of remaining outside of the EU) was regarded as
the more plausible consequence of non-EU membership than the loss of
identity and independence.
4. Conclusion
Political discourse analysis in Croatia regarding the question of EU
ascension included Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which focused
on the usage of expressive and ideologically marked words and figures
of speech, as well as a Rhetorical Analysis which aimed at discovering
the means of persuasion and preferred argumentation strategies in the
speeches of the supporters and opponents of EU.
The argumentation analysis proceeded descriptively, and aimed at
identifying the strength and validity of the arguments in the speeches
of Europhobes and Europhiles. Europhobes claimed that Croatian citi-
zens should vote NO on the referendum, while Europhiles claimed that
they have to say YES. Argumentation for the claims of both sides was
nent gave him an example of small countries which are successful and
big countries which are not, concluding that the size of the population is
not significant for the prosperity of a country). Further on, when asked
about alternatives to the EU, he responded: “The alternative to the EU is
Croatization of the planet” which, according to him, is possible insofar
as Croats currently live in 40 different countries all over the world. So,
on the one hand, there are not enough Croatians to succeed in the EU,
while a “Croatization of the planet” is claimed to be possible. Because
of the obvious contradictions and the absurdity of the idea of a “Croati-
zation of the planet,” this speaker was not taken seriously, and his argu-
mentation soon came to be seen as rationally unacceptable.
A similar answer to the frequently asked question “What is the al-
ternative to the EU” was provided by Gordan Masnjak, a representative
of the civil organization “No to EU” who addressed a Croatian audience
with the answer “the alternative are all of you!”
Often represented by speakers with an aggressive presentation, the
Europhobes’ absurd claims and weak argumentation did not enjoy a
strong credibility in the Croatian public sphere. The weakest point of
their argumentation, and thus one of the reasons why the Europhiles ap-
peal to fear was more effective, consisted in not being able to answer the
question on the alternative to the EU. Answers such as “the alternative
are the Croatian people; the alternative is a Croatization of planet; the
alternative is Croatia becoming like Switzerland” were neither persua-
sive nor convincing. The risk of an economic collapse and a poor credit
rating (as consequences of remaining outside of the EU) was regarded as
the more plausible consequence of non-EU membership than the loss of
identity and independence.
4. Conclusion
Political discourse analysis in Croatia regarding the question of EU
ascension included Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which focused
on the usage of expressive and ideologically marked words and figures
of speech, as well as a Rhetorical Analysis which aimed at discovering
the means of persuasion and preferred argumentation strategies in the
speeches of the supporters and opponents of EU.
The argumentation analysis proceeded descriptively, and aimed at
identifying the strength and validity of the arguments in the speeches
of Europhobes and Europhiles. Europhobes claimed that Croatian citi-
zens should vote NO on the referendum, while Europhiles claimed that
they have to say YES. Argumentation for the claims of both sides was
