Page 231 - 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. 231
the analysis of insulting practices – sticks and stones
in the croatian parliament 231
12–14 hours, so altogether about 70 hours of material have been ana-
lyzed.
3.3. Criteria
The criteria that was used for insult selection was either content-based
or response-type based because, as previously discussed, context and illo-
cutionary force of an utterance play an important role in defining what
can be perceived as an insult. If the insult was response-based, it was ob-
served whether it was by an addressee, party-member or the speaker or
whether paralinguistic cues were used. No response to an insult was sig-
nalled by the MP going back to the content.
3.4. Procedure
The corpus was analyzed in the following way. First, the recorded
sessions were watched and then the part of MPs’ speech or debate evalu-
ated as an insult was transcribed. The analysis of data was based on Ilie’s
(2004) framework of interface between rhetoric, discourse analysis and
cognitive linguistics. Firstly, a discourse theory perspective with foun-
dations in Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, qtd. in Ilie, 2004) cognitive sche-
mata theory was applied. It explains that the human process of under-
standing is done through image-schematic structures which are “rooted
in preconceptual embodiment patterns“ (2004: 49) and which thus re-
veal “inferential processes and implied meanings that are derived in the
course of institutional confrontation“ (2004: 49). Secondly, parliamen-
tary transgressions were analyzed based on the classical Aristotelian rhe-
torical framework (Habinek, 2005) where the insults, insult initiator/s
and insult target/s are observed through types of categories the orator
uses in his discourse (in our case insulting strategy) for his insult to come
through. Logos-oriented insults focus on the rational use of language and
the reasoning stems from the language itself. Ethos-oriented insults ap-
peal to the insult initiator or insult target character or moral qualities,
and pathos-oriented are those that are based on emotion, feelings of the
audience “that can change the ways that people affect their judgments“(-
Jaffe, 2010: 338).
Levels of analysis included, on the one hand direct insulting strat-
egies mostly done through fallacies like ad hominem, antiphrasis, guilt
by association types of arguments and which serve to establish either in-
group identity or polarization. On the other hand, indirect insulting
strategies were analyzed, which were achieved through rhetorical (rhe-
torical questions, sarcasm, irony) or pragmatic (juxtaposition of oppo-
in the croatian parliament 231
12–14 hours, so altogether about 70 hours of material have been ana-
lyzed.
3.3. Criteria
The criteria that was used for insult selection was either content-based
or response-type based because, as previously discussed, context and illo-
cutionary force of an utterance play an important role in defining what
can be perceived as an insult. If the insult was response-based, it was ob-
served whether it was by an addressee, party-member or the speaker or
whether paralinguistic cues were used. No response to an insult was sig-
nalled by the MP going back to the content.
3.4. Procedure
The corpus was analyzed in the following way. First, the recorded
sessions were watched and then the part of MPs’ speech or debate evalu-
ated as an insult was transcribed. The analysis of data was based on Ilie’s
(2004) framework of interface between rhetoric, discourse analysis and
cognitive linguistics. Firstly, a discourse theory perspective with foun-
dations in Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, qtd. in Ilie, 2004) cognitive sche-
mata theory was applied. It explains that the human process of under-
standing is done through image-schematic structures which are “rooted
in preconceptual embodiment patterns“ (2004: 49) and which thus re-
veal “inferential processes and implied meanings that are derived in the
course of institutional confrontation“ (2004: 49). Secondly, parliamen-
tary transgressions were analyzed based on the classical Aristotelian rhe-
torical framework (Habinek, 2005) where the insults, insult initiator/s
and insult target/s are observed through types of categories the orator
uses in his discourse (in our case insulting strategy) for his insult to come
through. Logos-oriented insults focus on the rational use of language and
the reasoning stems from the language itself. Ethos-oriented insults ap-
peal to the insult initiator or insult target character or moral qualities,
and pathos-oriented are those that are based on emotion, feelings of the
audience “that can change the ways that people affect their judgments“(-
Jaffe, 2010: 338).
Levels of analysis included, on the one hand direct insulting strat-
egies mostly done through fallacies like ad hominem, antiphrasis, guilt
by association types of arguments and which serve to establish either in-
group identity or polarization. On the other hand, indirect insulting
strategies were analyzed, which were achieved through rhetorical (rhe-
torical questions, sarcasm, irony) or pragmatic (juxtaposition of oppo-
