Page 238 - 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. 238
What Do We Know about the World?
his/her performing a certain kind of speech act“. The most common
mitigation strategies are very similar to those found in both British and
Swedish parliaments (Ilie, 2004) such as a) attribution transfer strategy,
b) juxtaposition of opposite notions and c) the formulation of insults as
questions rather than as statements.
4.2.1. Attribution Transfer Strateg y
Ilie (2004: 59) defines it as usage of “indirect attribution strategies in
order to avoid taking direct responsibility for using derogatory qualifiers
to characterise someone“. Basically, what the MPs do is they transfer the
negative qualifier to the target’s acts or statements rather than directly
insulting the person. The following examples show how Croatian MPs
transfer the insult to some abstract notion (procedure) instead of direct-
ly insulting another MP or his/her party:
(6) N. D. (HSLS): [...] Ukoliko zakonom propisani postupak procjene ut-
jecaja na okoliš nije zadovoljavajući, [...] potrebno ga je dopuniti, a ne propisi-
vati paralelan postupak koji će kao i postojeći prvenstveno služiti za pranje novca
[...]. ( 4/36, 3. rujna 2003.)
N. D. (SocLib): [...] If legally prescribed procedure on the environmental im-
pact assessment is not satisfactory, [...], it is necessary to supplement it, and
not to prescribe a parallel procedure that will, as the existing one, primarily
serve for money laundering [...]. (4/36, September 3, 2003)
It is obvious that it is not the procedure, but the people behind it
(and implicitly, the ruling party) that the MP is trying to disqualify. An-
other instance of attribution transfer strategy, commonly used by the
Croatian MPs, is non-specific reference to the insult target (also see ex-
ample (5)). Unlike the former example, where the insult initiator is try-
ing to mitigate his/her insult through insulting the target’s acts or state-
ments or some abstract notion, in the following example the initiator
avoids directly mentioning the insult target’s name, and instead uses a
description of his actions. It is more than clear who the MP is referring
to, but nowhere in the whole process does s/he name the person in ques-
tion and therefore s/he can distance her/himself from the direct derog-
atory attribution:
(7) B. D. (HSLS): Dame i gospodo, ako ste osoba protiv koje je podnijeto de-
setak kaznenih prijava, ako sami u svojim intervjuima dajete izjave koje ukazuju da
ste i sami počinili, osim tih prijava kaznena djela, što je vama učiniti? Otići na
jahtu, predsjednika države, to je inovacija. Ili na topovnjaču. Ispovjediti se bez poko-
re, dobiti razrješenje. I ne samo to, nego još i sklopiti posao i još sklopiti posao u drugoj
zemlji, a hrvatska politika šuti, političke stranke šute, mediji o tome govore,
his/her performing a certain kind of speech act“. The most common
mitigation strategies are very similar to those found in both British and
Swedish parliaments (Ilie, 2004) such as a) attribution transfer strategy,
b) juxtaposition of opposite notions and c) the formulation of insults as
questions rather than as statements.
4.2.1. Attribution Transfer Strateg y
Ilie (2004: 59) defines it as usage of “indirect attribution strategies in
order to avoid taking direct responsibility for using derogatory qualifiers
to characterise someone“. Basically, what the MPs do is they transfer the
negative qualifier to the target’s acts or statements rather than directly
insulting the person. The following examples show how Croatian MPs
transfer the insult to some abstract notion (procedure) instead of direct-
ly insulting another MP or his/her party:
(6) N. D. (HSLS): [...] Ukoliko zakonom propisani postupak procjene ut-
jecaja na okoliš nije zadovoljavajući, [...] potrebno ga je dopuniti, a ne propisi-
vati paralelan postupak koji će kao i postojeći prvenstveno služiti za pranje novca
[...]. ( 4/36, 3. rujna 2003.)
N. D. (SocLib): [...] If legally prescribed procedure on the environmental im-
pact assessment is not satisfactory, [...], it is necessary to supplement it, and
not to prescribe a parallel procedure that will, as the existing one, primarily
serve for money laundering [...]. (4/36, September 3, 2003)
It is obvious that it is not the procedure, but the people behind it
(and implicitly, the ruling party) that the MP is trying to disqualify. An-
other instance of attribution transfer strategy, commonly used by the
Croatian MPs, is non-specific reference to the insult target (also see ex-
ample (5)). Unlike the former example, where the insult initiator is try-
ing to mitigate his/her insult through insulting the target’s acts or state-
ments or some abstract notion, in the following example the initiator
avoids directly mentioning the insult target’s name, and instead uses a
description of his actions. It is more than clear who the MP is referring
to, but nowhere in the whole process does s/he name the person in ques-
tion and therefore s/he can distance her/himself from the direct derog-
atory attribution:
(7) B. D. (HSLS): Dame i gospodo, ako ste osoba protiv koje je podnijeto de-
setak kaznenih prijava, ako sami u svojim intervjuima dajete izjave koje ukazuju da
ste i sami počinili, osim tih prijava kaznena djela, što je vama učiniti? Otići na
jahtu, predsjednika države, to je inovacija. Ili na topovnjaču. Ispovjediti se bez poko-
re, dobiti razrješenje. I ne samo to, nego još i sklopiti posao i još sklopiti posao u drugoj
zemlji, a hrvatska politika šuti, političke stranke šute, mediji o tome govore,
