Page 210 - 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. 210
What Do We Know about the World?
thing different to create possibilities for living together and taking care of
each other, and inheriting, and it is something different to go in the direc-
tion of mechanisms, or regulations, which concern a sphere, or a tradition-
al model of family. I suppose that it is rather a fancy question, because I don’t
expect that such a legislative initiative is probable in the nearest future, it is
rather being talked about in quite narrow circles. One should be decent to-
wards everyone, we should not be too inquisitive about the private lives of
others, but we can also solve problems of people living in such relationships
decently, in accordance with the law currently in effect. If it turned out that
something is missing, that some mechanisms require polishing up, that, for
example, there is no easy access to medical care, when somebody goes to
hospital, so such a bill should be enforced in the name of political decency.
But we shouldn’t mix it with a problem of marriage, adoption or other situa-
tions of that type, which are confined to the marriage of people of different
sex.
The question posed by the interviewer appears to be somewhat con-
troversial, especially for a politician representing a right-wing and centre-
right-wing party. Nevertheless, even if Komorowski evades answering
the question, he does not conceal his standpoint. Later, we can decipher
that he is in favour of a traditional family model, though, it is expressed
covertly (ideational function). He makes use of hedges of casual conver-
sation, such as “I suppose”, modal verbs: “can”, negative form of “can” –
“cannot”, “should”, a conditional structure to avoid answering (textual
function). He does so in the face of an oncoming election and in order
not to discourage a part of his electorate. Komorowski’s lexical choice,
the use of colloquial or humorous words, e.g. “fancy” (in Polish wydu-
many denoting something “unlikely, improbable, fake” (Słownik Języka
Polskiego), or “trivial, made-up, far-fetched” (Słownik Synonimów)) or a
not very complex syntax, as well as an impersonal style also serve to cre-
ate his positive image (interpersonal function). The aforementioned fac-
tors contribute to the adaptability and flexibility of the candidate, fac-
tors which guarantee success in the political discourse, which in turn is
persuasive in its nature.
To recapitulate, Quintilian maintains that “no man can be a good
orator unless he is a good man” (Non posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum
– Quintilian, 1907: 416 [12,1,1], quoted in Kucz, 2009: 31). Plato (1973:
83), on the other hand, holds that the persuader is an “expert in rhetor-
ical subtlety”, equipped with the knowledge of speech cohesion and co-
herence (structure of the speech) enabling to offer proof, but without
any insight into and consideration of truthfulness or real knowledge of
thing different to create possibilities for living together and taking care of
each other, and inheriting, and it is something different to go in the direc-
tion of mechanisms, or regulations, which concern a sphere, or a tradition-
al model of family. I suppose that it is rather a fancy question, because I don’t
expect that such a legislative initiative is probable in the nearest future, it is
rather being talked about in quite narrow circles. One should be decent to-
wards everyone, we should not be too inquisitive about the private lives of
others, but we can also solve problems of people living in such relationships
decently, in accordance with the law currently in effect. If it turned out that
something is missing, that some mechanisms require polishing up, that, for
example, there is no easy access to medical care, when somebody goes to
hospital, so such a bill should be enforced in the name of political decency.
But we shouldn’t mix it with a problem of marriage, adoption or other situa-
tions of that type, which are confined to the marriage of people of different
sex.
The question posed by the interviewer appears to be somewhat con-
troversial, especially for a politician representing a right-wing and centre-
right-wing party. Nevertheless, even if Komorowski evades answering
the question, he does not conceal his standpoint. Later, we can decipher
that he is in favour of a traditional family model, though, it is expressed
covertly (ideational function). He makes use of hedges of casual conver-
sation, such as “I suppose”, modal verbs: “can”, negative form of “can” –
“cannot”, “should”, a conditional structure to avoid answering (textual
function). He does so in the face of an oncoming election and in order
not to discourage a part of his electorate. Komorowski’s lexical choice,
the use of colloquial or humorous words, e.g. “fancy” (in Polish wydu-
many denoting something “unlikely, improbable, fake” (Słownik Języka
Polskiego), or “trivial, made-up, far-fetched” (Słownik Synonimów)) or a
not very complex syntax, as well as an impersonal style also serve to cre-
ate his positive image (interpersonal function). The aforementioned fac-
tors contribute to the adaptability and flexibility of the candidate, fac-
tors which guarantee success in the political discourse, which in turn is
persuasive in its nature.
To recapitulate, Quintilian maintains that “no man can be a good
orator unless he is a good man” (Non posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum
– Quintilian, 1907: 416 [12,1,1], quoted in Kucz, 2009: 31). Plato (1973:
83), on the other hand, holds that the persuader is an “expert in rhetor-
ical subtlety”, equipped with the knowledge of speech cohesion and co-
herence (structure of the speech) enabling to offer proof, but without
any insight into and consideration of truthfulness or real knowledge of
