Page 234 - 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. 234
What Do We Know about the World?
(3) J. K. (Prime Minister): Gospodine predsjedniče, budući da ovo nije
pitanje nego samo nastojanje da se uvrijedi, ja, naravno, to je poznato javnosti
koja poznaje Ustav Republike Hrvatske i hrvatske zakone da ja nisam nasl-
jednica jer ovo nije monarhija, pa onda ja ne mogu biti nasljednica. [...] Ja ću
vam na ovo pitanje koje to nije odgovoriti, objasnite vi meni gospodine Jovano-
viću kako se može ljetovati za 7 kuna i je li se pri tom platio ili se nije pri tom platio
PDV? (6/23, Aktualno prijepodne 6.travnja 2011.)
Ž. J. (SocDem): My question is for the personally selected successor of Ivo Sanad-
er in the place of Prime Minister, Mrs. Kosor. Mrs. Kosor can you tell us: how
can you survive with a two thousand kuna salary or pension in Croatia?
(6/23, Question time, 6 April, 2011)
J. K. (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, since this is not a question as it is an at-
tempt to insult, I, of course, it is known to the public who knows the Constitu-
tion of the Republic of Croatia and Croatian laws, that I am not the succes-
sor, because this is not a monarchy, and then I cannot be the successor. [...]
I will give an answer to this question, although it is actually not a question
at all, please explain, Mr. Jovanović, how can one spend their holidays paying for
it 7 kuna and in doing so, has one paid or has one not paid VAT? (6/23, Question
time, 6 April, 2011)
In the example (2) we can again see the same ironical form and guilt
by association type of ad hominem in the form of address as in the exam-
ple (1). Prime Minister Kosor’s answer to the question, which she clear-
ly perceives as an insult, is an example of circumstantial ad hominem at-
tack, also known as the tu quoque (you too) (Krabbe and Walton, 1993;
Walton, 1998; Tindale, 2007) type of argument, which Croatian MPs
use quite often. It represents a case where the critic replies to a previ-
ous ad hominem attack by saying that the insult initiator is the same as
the insult target and therefore cannot be accountable for delivering the
criticism in the first place. It can also, according to Krabbe and Walton
(1993: 82), serve as “a sign of a shift to a quarrel”, which is what the Prime
Minister (3) tried to achieve, as she promptly reacted to an accusation
with a counter-accusation. At the same time, in her counter attack, in-
stead of you she is using the indefinite pronoun one, which is marked for
non-specificity. This strategy is called defocalization (Haverkate, 1992:
516) which is “a distancing technique applied by the speaker in order to
minimize his/her own role or that of the hearer in the state of affairs de-
scribed“ and is often found in the Croatian parliament when MPs try to
mitigate assertive force of their accusations or insults.
Like their British colleagues, Croatian MPs demonstrate constant
parliamentary transgressions directed towards opposite political parties
(3) J. K. (Prime Minister): Gospodine predsjedniče, budući da ovo nije
pitanje nego samo nastojanje da se uvrijedi, ja, naravno, to je poznato javnosti
koja poznaje Ustav Republike Hrvatske i hrvatske zakone da ja nisam nasl-
jednica jer ovo nije monarhija, pa onda ja ne mogu biti nasljednica. [...] Ja ću
vam na ovo pitanje koje to nije odgovoriti, objasnite vi meni gospodine Jovano-
viću kako se može ljetovati za 7 kuna i je li se pri tom platio ili se nije pri tom platio
PDV? (6/23, Aktualno prijepodne 6.travnja 2011.)
Ž. J. (SocDem): My question is for the personally selected successor of Ivo Sanad-
er in the place of Prime Minister, Mrs. Kosor. Mrs. Kosor can you tell us: how
can you survive with a two thousand kuna salary or pension in Croatia?
(6/23, Question time, 6 April, 2011)
J. K. (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, since this is not a question as it is an at-
tempt to insult, I, of course, it is known to the public who knows the Constitu-
tion of the Republic of Croatia and Croatian laws, that I am not the succes-
sor, because this is not a monarchy, and then I cannot be the successor. [...]
I will give an answer to this question, although it is actually not a question
at all, please explain, Mr. Jovanović, how can one spend their holidays paying for
it 7 kuna and in doing so, has one paid or has one not paid VAT? (6/23, Question
time, 6 April, 2011)
In the example (2) we can again see the same ironical form and guilt
by association type of ad hominem in the form of address as in the exam-
ple (1). Prime Minister Kosor’s answer to the question, which she clear-
ly perceives as an insult, is an example of circumstantial ad hominem at-
tack, also known as the tu quoque (you too) (Krabbe and Walton, 1993;
Walton, 1998; Tindale, 2007) type of argument, which Croatian MPs
use quite often. It represents a case where the critic replies to a previ-
ous ad hominem attack by saying that the insult initiator is the same as
the insult target and therefore cannot be accountable for delivering the
criticism in the first place. It can also, according to Krabbe and Walton
(1993: 82), serve as “a sign of a shift to a quarrel”, which is what the Prime
Minister (3) tried to achieve, as she promptly reacted to an accusation
with a counter-accusation. At the same time, in her counter attack, in-
stead of you she is using the indefinite pronoun one, which is marked for
non-specificity. This strategy is called defocalization (Haverkate, 1992:
516) which is “a distancing technique applied by the speaker in order to
minimize his/her own role or that of the hearer in the state of affairs de-
scribed“ and is often found in the Croatian parliament when MPs try to
mitigate assertive force of their accusations or insults.
Like their British colleagues, Croatian MPs demonstrate constant
parliamentary transgressions directed towards opposite political parties
