Page 226 - 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. 226
What Do We Know about the World?
1. Introduction
This paper provides an insight into the insulting practices found in
the Croatian Parliament compared with the recorded instances of Brit-
ish and Swedish parliaments (Illie, 2001; 2004; 2010a; 2010b). It also of-
fers some explanation to the underlying workings of the insult initiator
and insult target.
In everyday life individuals sometimes tend to express their opin-
ions of politicians in the form of insults. When speaking privately, peo-
ple can say more or less whatever they want without any consequences,
but what happens when one is using offensive, derogatory or disparag-
ing terms publicly? More oppressive societies have insult laws (Walden,
2002: 207) which “regulate freedom of expression and enforce laws that
punish the criticism of the government officials and institutions“. In
their basis, these laws are very rigid, oppressive and prevent freedom of
speech and opinion. On the other side, democratic societies take pride
in the possibility of an individual publicly saying whatever s/he choos-
es. Nonetheless, even such societies have something to regulate offen-
sive public discourse, and that is criminal defamation law (Walden,
2002) which protects a person when his/her reputation is threatened
by falsely asserting a fact. Therefore, when speaking publicly, especial-
ly when one’s conversation is being broadcast or documented, individu-
als need to think in advance of how and to whom they are going to ad-
dress their insult, as there are consequences to their speech acts. Howev-
er, what happens when an insult is done in the parliament by the Mem-
ber of Parliament (MP)? Do the same rules apply? Is it normal to expect
and assume that, beside the proscribed rules of conduct in the Parlia-
ment, working in such an environment and at such a distinguished po-
sition will immediately bring a higher moral code and values of conduct
of its elected officials?
1.2. Rationale
Studying insults, especially those done by the MPs can give an in-
sight into “social and cultural systems of moral values’’ (Ilie, 2004: 45),
ideology behind the insult, party affiliation, balance of power between
the opposing sides/parties, power (not only power granted by “institu-
tional status“ (Ilie, 2001: 236), but power seen as “interactional skill and
process“ (2001: 236), i.e. the power obtained through interaction with
other MPs, and finally, language style of an individual MP. Diachron-
ic analysis of unparliamentary discursive practices during different par-
liament sessions can reveal the possible change of institutionalized lan-
1. Introduction
This paper provides an insight into the insulting practices found in
the Croatian Parliament compared with the recorded instances of Brit-
ish and Swedish parliaments (Illie, 2001; 2004; 2010a; 2010b). It also of-
fers some explanation to the underlying workings of the insult initiator
and insult target.
In everyday life individuals sometimes tend to express their opin-
ions of politicians in the form of insults. When speaking privately, peo-
ple can say more or less whatever they want without any consequences,
but what happens when one is using offensive, derogatory or disparag-
ing terms publicly? More oppressive societies have insult laws (Walden,
2002: 207) which “regulate freedom of expression and enforce laws that
punish the criticism of the government officials and institutions“. In
their basis, these laws are very rigid, oppressive and prevent freedom of
speech and opinion. On the other side, democratic societies take pride
in the possibility of an individual publicly saying whatever s/he choos-
es. Nonetheless, even such societies have something to regulate offen-
sive public discourse, and that is criminal defamation law (Walden,
2002) which protects a person when his/her reputation is threatened
by falsely asserting a fact. Therefore, when speaking publicly, especial-
ly when one’s conversation is being broadcast or documented, individu-
als need to think in advance of how and to whom they are going to ad-
dress their insult, as there are consequences to their speech acts. Howev-
er, what happens when an insult is done in the parliament by the Mem-
ber of Parliament (MP)? Do the same rules apply? Is it normal to expect
and assume that, beside the proscribed rules of conduct in the Parlia-
ment, working in such an environment and at such a distinguished po-
sition will immediately bring a higher moral code and values of conduct
of its elected officials?
1.2. Rationale
Studying insults, especially those done by the MPs can give an in-
sight into “social and cultural systems of moral values’’ (Ilie, 2004: 45),
ideology behind the insult, party affiliation, balance of power between
the opposing sides/parties, power (not only power granted by “institu-
tional status“ (Ilie, 2001: 236), but power seen as “interactional skill and
process“ (2001: 236), i.e. the power obtained through interaction with
other MPs, and finally, language style of an individual MP. Diachron-
ic analysis of unparliamentary discursive practices during different par-
liament sessions can reveal the possible change of institutionalized lan-
