Page 240 - 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. 240
What Do We Know about the World?
2004), which could be read as an attempt to show the corruption and
lack of good judgment of the ruling party. Moreover, they function more
as rhetorical questions than the real ones, as the MP provides a scornful
answer to them at the end. Questions in the example contain repetition
(Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 2008), precisely anaphora (will be held
accountable), which serves to accentuate a point and increase the “feel-
ing of presence“ (2008: 175) of arguments. Repetition is one of the surest
and easiest ways to make arguments more pronounced and less surpris-
ing, and this is exactly what the MP tried to achieve.
(9) K. D. (IDS): Da li ste tome pritvoreniku iz Salzburga, da ne kažem krimi-
nalcu, kako ga predstavljaju mediji, ijednom rekli gospodine Sanaderu, prijatel-
ju, druže, kamaradu, gospodine, ekscelencijo, pretjerali ste, dosta toga. Nije valjda
da niste mogli naslutiti kamo ide njegova samovolja. [...] ali ministri znali su
u 90 % slučajeva što se zapravo zbiva u Vladi, kod čovjeka koji je, tako mediji gov-
ore, 90 % radio mimo zakona, a svega 10 % valjda u skladu sa zakonom. (6/24,
28. rujna 2011.)
K. D. (IstrianDem): Have you ever said to this detainee from Salzburg, I will not
use the word criminal, as the media call him, Mr. Sanader, friend, comrade, com-
padre, Sir, Your Excellency, you have gone too far, it’s enough. Is it possible that you
could not have guessed where his autocracy was leading. [...] but the min-
isters knew in 90 % of the cases what was actually going on in the govern-
ment, with the man who was, as the media claim, 90 % of the time working on
the other side of the law, and only 10 %, I suppose, in accordance with the law.
(6/24, September 28, 2011)
This example shows ad hominem attacks and irony in the form of
rhetorical question, but it also displays a brilliant usage of the deictic
device called hedge (Lakoff, 1972). The MP first uses an ad hominem
attack to say that the former Prime Minister is a criminal, but then
uses the mitigating effect of the hedge, in this case the media, to avoid
making the impression that he is personally responsible for the assess-
ment, and thus modifies the force of the insult so that he cannot be ac-
countable for something someone else said. This example also displays
the usage of etiquette and forms of address as an opportunity to insult
(see also example (1)). The rhetorical figure of irony stems from ridicule
that is, according to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (2008: 207), “of-
ten achieved through clever deductions drawn from what one is trying
to criticize“. Here, the MP is criticizing and trying to insult the lead-
ing party members by accusing them of knowing what was going on at
the time.
2004), which could be read as an attempt to show the corruption and
lack of good judgment of the ruling party. Moreover, they function more
as rhetorical questions than the real ones, as the MP provides a scornful
answer to them at the end. Questions in the example contain repetition
(Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 2008), precisely anaphora (will be held
accountable), which serves to accentuate a point and increase the “feel-
ing of presence“ (2008: 175) of arguments. Repetition is one of the surest
and easiest ways to make arguments more pronounced and less surpris-
ing, and this is exactly what the MP tried to achieve.
(9) K. D. (IDS): Da li ste tome pritvoreniku iz Salzburga, da ne kažem krimi-
nalcu, kako ga predstavljaju mediji, ijednom rekli gospodine Sanaderu, prijatel-
ju, druže, kamaradu, gospodine, ekscelencijo, pretjerali ste, dosta toga. Nije valjda
da niste mogli naslutiti kamo ide njegova samovolja. [...] ali ministri znali su
u 90 % slučajeva što se zapravo zbiva u Vladi, kod čovjeka koji je, tako mediji gov-
ore, 90 % radio mimo zakona, a svega 10 % valjda u skladu sa zakonom. (6/24,
28. rujna 2011.)
K. D. (IstrianDem): Have you ever said to this detainee from Salzburg, I will not
use the word criminal, as the media call him, Mr. Sanader, friend, comrade, com-
padre, Sir, Your Excellency, you have gone too far, it’s enough. Is it possible that you
could not have guessed where his autocracy was leading. [...] but the min-
isters knew in 90 % of the cases what was actually going on in the govern-
ment, with the man who was, as the media claim, 90 % of the time working on
the other side of the law, and only 10 %, I suppose, in accordance with the law.
(6/24, September 28, 2011)
This example shows ad hominem attacks and irony in the form of
rhetorical question, but it also displays a brilliant usage of the deictic
device called hedge (Lakoff, 1972). The MP first uses an ad hominem
attack to say that the former Prime Minister is a criminal, but then
uses the mitigating effect of the hedge, in this case the media, to avoid
making the impression that he is personally responsible for the assess-
ment, and thus modifies the force of the insult so that he cannot be ac-
countable for something someone else said. This example also displays
the usage of etiquette and forms of address as an opportunity to insult
(see also example (1)). The rhetorical figure of irony stems from ridicule
that is, according to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (2008: 207), “of-
ten achieved through clever deductions drawn from what one is trying
to criticize“. Here, the MP is criticizing and trying to insult the lead-
ing party members by accusing them of knowing what was going on at
the time.
