Page 235 - 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. 235
the analysis of insulting practices – sticks and stones
in the croatian parliament 235
i.e. political rather than rhetorical polarization (Ilie, 2004: 56). This type
of polarization is based solely on party membership, and not on the ide-
ology. The relationship between political camps shifts according to the
coalition formed and according to the power-shift.
4.1.1. Diachronic Aspect of (Un)parliamentary Polarization
As for the types of polarization, Croatian unparliamentary lan-
guage has undergone a significant diachronic change. In the Second
Term (1992–1995), insulting acts were primarily pathos-oriented, just
like the British ones (Ilie, 2004), which in the Croatian case can be ex-
plained with the political and social situation (Croatian sovereignty,
homeland security, neighbouring country at war, war and post-war sit-
uation in Croatia, refugees etc.) at the time. Chilton (2004) claims that
political discourse has specific connections to the emotional centers of
the brain and that “some politically relevant feelings, such as territori-
al belonging and identity (‘home’), love of family, fear of intruders and
unknown people [...] might have an innate basis and be stimulated au-
tomatically in the political use of language“ (2004: 204), which was es-
pecially perceptible in the terms following the Croatian independence.
The dominant party at the time was CDU, right-wing party, with the
predominant number of seats won (85, as compared to the second larg-
est, 14 won by CSLP) and most of the insults at the time were pathos-ori-
ented, group-identity oriented, with colourful metaphors, ad personam
attacks and rhetorical questions, meaning you are either with us (Cro-
ats) or against us, i.e. pro-Serbian, which is a typical example of non se-
quitur. A lot of insults were generally addressed towards decisions done
by the government, and only isolated instances were personally drawn.
Most of the MPs used pathos to construct their insult by appealing to the
general public, emphasizing what the wider audience was thinking and/
or wanting to hear. The example that follows shows the usage of ad hom-
inem arguments and rhetorical questions for a pathos-oriented strategy:
(4) Đ. Š. (HDZ): I dalje, predlažem da se ukine smiješni zakon o oprostu
četnicima! To je smiješni zakon! Gospodo, cijela se Europa smije Hrvatskoj da
je oprostila nekakovim snagama koje vrše genocid, etnocid, memoricid nad hrvat-
skim narodom jednako katoličke i muslimanske vjeroispovijesti, a da ovaj
Sabor nije imao hrabrosti, a ja bih rekao ni pameti, da kaže s kim je to Hrvats-
ka u ratu. Ja se pitam tko vodi pregovore sa državom koja nije pristala niti na
primirje?! Pa, što smo mi, jesmo li mi dječji vrtić ili smo Hrvatski parlament? [...]
I, nemojte se ljutiti na mene vi, moji stranački kolege, jer Hrvatska demokrats-
in the croatian parliament 235
i.e. political rather than rhetorical polarization (Ilie, 2004: 56). This type
of polarization is based solely on party membership, and not on the ide-
ology. The relationship between political camps shifts according to the
coalition formed and according to the power-shift.
4.1.1. Diachronic Aspect of (Un)parliamentary Polarization
As for the types of polarization, Croatian unparliamentary lan-
guage has undergone a significant diachronic change. In the Second
Term (1992–1995), insulting acts were primarily pathos-oriented, just
like the British ones (Ilie, 2004), which in the Croatian case can be ex-
plained with the political and social situation (Croatian sovereignty,
homeland security, neighbouring country at war, war and post-war sit-
uation in Croatia, refugees etc.) at the time. Chilton (2004) claims that
political discourse has specific connections to the emotional centers of
the brain and that “some politically relevant feelings, such as territori-
al belonging and identity (‘home’), love of family, fear of intruders and
unknown people [...] might have an innate basis and be stimulated au-
tomatically in the political use of language“ (2004: 204), which was es-
pecially perceptible in the terms following the Croatian independence.
The dominant party at the time was CDU, right-wing party, with the
predominant number of seats won (85, as compared to the second larg-
est, 14 won by CSLP) and most of the insults at the time were pathos-ori-
ented, group-identity oriented, with colourful metaphors, ad personam
attacks and rhetorical questions, meaning you are either with us (Cro-
ats) or against us, i.e. pro-Serbian, which is a typical example of non se-
quitur. A lot of insults were generally addressed towards decisions done
by the government, and only isolated instances were personally drawn.
Most of the MPs used pathos to construct their insult by appealing to the
general public, emphasizing what the wider audience was thinking and/
or wanting to hear. The example that follows shows the usage of ad hom-
inem arguments and rhetorical questions for a pathos-oriented strategy:
(4) Đ. Š. (HDZ): I dalje, predlažem da se ukine smiješni zakon o oprostu
četnicima! To je smiješni zakon! Gospodo, cijela se Europa smije Hrvatskoj da
je oprostila nekakovim snagama koje vrše genocid, etnocid, memoricid nad hrvat-
skim narodom jednako katoličke i muslimanske vjeroispovijesti, a da ovaj
Sabor nije imao hrabrosti, a ja bih rekao ni pameti, da kaže s kim je to Hrvats-
ka u ratu. Ja se pitam tko vodi pregovore sa državom koja nije pristala niti na
primirje?! Pa, što smo mi, jesmo li mi dječji vrtić ili smo Hrvatski parlament? [...]
I, nemojte se ljutiti na mene vi, moji stranački kolege, jer Hrvatska demokrats-
